Thread 508606256

>Judge with actual reasoning and brain cells: An AI looking at multimedia on the public internet so it can learn from them and create it's own material is no different than a human being doing the same thing
>Leftists: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>508606256 (OP)
AI companies are For Profit, so how can that be? Check the judge's early life

>>508606256 (OP)
But when China does it it's called intellectual property infringement huh

Based

Copyright shouldn't apply to digital pastiches.

>>508606256 (OP)
Time to train an AI on the Windows XP source code.

>>508606256 (OP)
God i hate artist faggots so much. SAAARS BUT MUUUUH FAKE JOOOOB. Shut the fuck up. You cant stop tech progress.

>>508606256 (OP)
> stolen

Artists study other works, get inspired, and create based on their existing knowledge base all the time. Now, in the 21st century, computers have evolved (thanks to humans) to have the ability do this.

Realistically, since there's more than one case like this going on in different jurisdictions, we may see a different court rule that it's not fair use. Which means SCOTUS is going to have to resolve the issue.

>>508606256 (OP)
It's because these leftist tumblr "artists" know that they have no real talent. They huff their farts about how muh arts are always liberal, yet under their watch every aspect of the arts has seen interest from the public completely evaporate.

>>508606256 (OP)
I hate AI slop but i'm not a leftard or an artist. It just look ugly as shit

The only reason this is a problem is that unemployment = death for most people. If it didn't guarantee starvation and struggle then I doubt anyone would care.

>Download a movie or music album on torrent
>Get sued and fined for copyright infringement
>Be random person
>Take photos
>tech companies can just steal your photos and put them into their AI algorithm to train them to create slop
>Law allows them to get away with stealing your content

Why the hypocrisy?

>>508607342
>>508607382
>>508607551
The first line in the document is about Books and you morons keep talking about Cartoonists. Are you stupid or Kikes? If you want intellectual property to be Socialized, that's fine with me. But don't let it be behind a Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg paywall.

>>508607701
Its cause you dont know how to prompt Correctly. You can create some amazing stuff with AI and itll only get better very soon too.

>>508607836
The tweet at the top of the photo explicitly mentions artists. So you’re either so unobservant you missed that, or you pretended not to see it to get in your pissy little insult attempt. Which is it?

>>508606256 (OP)
That's fucked.

I also think libraries are communistic and should be banned, or at the very least privatized, though.

>>508608041
You blind faggot, are you really going to deny that the first line in the letter is about books?

>>508606256 (OP)
leftists shouldn't be allowed to use AI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FfPP-pD0LQA

>>508606256 (OP)
So I can look at pirated movies too as long as I'm learning?

>take photo of building
>copyright infringement
>steal copyrighted work for profit
>a-ok
????????????????

>>508608131
Are you gebuinely retarded?

>>508608181
The difference is that the AI is using the building to inform what it creates. It is not literally directly copying the building.

>>508608181
Freemason judges
Special rules for jewish tech overlords

And here's the consensus kike to the rescue >>508608243

>>508606256 (OP)
That doesn't make sense. Taking a picture of Mickey Mouse and using that to say you made Mickey Mouse, calling it yours, isn't protected like this.

>>508607864
Saaaar

>>508607382
Thanks to Jews.

>>508608279
What's the point in inventing something if ai can just steal the idea legally and make it property of jew techlords. They're gonna ruin everything why would I go through the troubles of making a recipe website if hook nosed techlords can just copy my work and leave me with no traffic...?

How can Archive.org lose their case but this one is fine? We can leverage this either way: everyone gets free books, including Kike Tech fags, or No one gets free books, including Kike Tech fags.

>>508608841
Good question. It's probably the fact that SCOTUS are old retards working in favor of big businesses.

>>508606256 (OP)
There is nothing new under the sun. An AI using previously created work to create a new work is the same as a fantasy writer recreating Tolkien (who recreated sagas and beowulf).

>>508609434
According to this post, they addressed that and don't believe there's cognitive dissonance.
https://x.com/edleeprof/status/1937495278267011451

>Dario Amodei (born 1983) is an American artificial intelligence researcher and entrepreneur. He is the co-founder and CEO of Anthropic....his mother Elena Engel is Jewish American and was born in Chicago and worked as a project manager for libraries

>>508606256 (OP)
>kikes steal the work of writers and artists
>use it to generate soulless infinite slop to sell for profit without having to employ or pay anyone
>nobody creates anything of beauty or meaning any more because now all the artists and writers have to spend their days in the wage cage
>consoomers: YAAAAAY
Wonder how Adolf would feel about this?

>>508609640
Your AI doesn't know anything about the President of Walmart. I write a whole book where I traveled the country finding out everything I could about him, facts no one has seen before. Instead of buying my book for $5, or even asking me to consent to donating it, your $100 AI just regurgitates my research on command. Is that fair? If the AI cost $0, wouldn't that be more fair?

>>508607342
ai music sounds like AIDS.

>>508608698
>What's the point in inventing something if ai can just steal the idea legally and make it property of jew techlords
There isn't. Not even for humanitarian/public reasons, because the AI will steal your non-profit IP and transform it into some for-profit slop. You are basically Sam Altman's cuck

>>508609963
There is nothing new under the sun, as I said. Your research is based on the work of others.

>>508610075
Imagine when all zoomers can become YouTubers just by asking Alexa to create a video. It's gonna be ends upon of ends of the same soulless AI slop and it's gonna be even more difficult to find good content than it is finding a good movie on netflix currently. If you thought the internet is shit now, then it's gonna get a hole lot worse.

>>508610273
Yeah we basically become jannie's that either consume braindead slop or work for free to feed the algorithms so the jews can profit off our idea. Our hope can be that it gets so bad that people finally quits the matrix and goes offline

>>508610624
The idea of comparing humans to machines is in itself flawed and very jewish

>>508610624
I notice you didnt answer whether the Kikes profiting off of the whole situation was fair or not

>>508607382
Oh, so you think I could just recreate all the works of famous authors, changing a few words here and there and not be sued into oblivion?

>>508607836
>Books
Bro, do you think modern authors are like Spengler and Tolkien? Lmao even. Most books are vampire rape porn for women and tranny coloring books for children. Good riddance.

>>508606256 (OP)
>Company using copyrighted resources of other to train their AI whose services they will charge you to use
How the fuck is this not copyright infringement?

>>508611681
Yeah it's a good NPC test to see if people have souls. Only creative people fear a world where they have no reward or exposure when they create something new. NPC goblings will just consume whatever is presented to them without any thought

>>508606256 (OP)
Jews fingers typed this. Imagine giving your work away for free to jews

Every AI company is run by jews, chinks, or poojeets. You just know /pol/ is filled with shitskins when you see how threads like this.

>>508611517
There has been a 575% increase in books published per year in the last 50 years. 400,000 per year in 1970 to 2.7 million in 2020. Just because the market is saturated and they're harder to find does not mean intelligent people still do not do good work. Think about what you're saying: no goyim makes good books anymore. Is that what you believe?

Every AI company is run by jews, chinks, or poojeets. They steal from White people to make their product. You just know /pol/ is filled with shitskins when you see threads like this.

>>508606256 (OP)
Awesome, this means it's not piracy as long as I don't intend to make money off the copy I download.

>>508606256 (OP)
FULL SUPPORT SAAAR. AI IS THE FUTURE SAAAAAR. DO THE NEEDFUL AND REDEEM THE AI PROMPT.

>>508607714
>unemployment = death for most people
trvthnvke

>>508606256 (OP)
If AI can train on copyrighted material, can I pirate games and music legally?

>>508612279
>freemasons
Like I said, nothing of value lost.

>>508611929
Listen anon if a videogame steals the engine assets of another companies engine for their videogame that is copyright infringement.
How is that any different than an AI company stealing thousands of other people assets and using those assets for their AI to shit out clones of it and for the the ai company to charge people to use that AI.
If this AI is free to use for people I would agree that is ok and fair use but the AI is not free it will require you to be charged to use it.

>>508613372
That book names the Kikes harder than you ever have in your entire life.

>>508612621
but the ai company is charging you to use the ai so they are using other peoples assets to make money so it is copyright infringement if the AI is free to use and doesnt require payment for access then that would be ok but at its current state this isnt how the situation is.

>>508607714
Just get a job then??

>>508606256 (OP)
Based, fuck jews.

>>508613830
The Defendant is a Kike, idiot.

AI is useless slop. It will always be useless slop. It will never be anything except useless slop.

>>508613822
If you mean service jobs we have already flooded those with hispanics and with indians, if you mean go trade jobs you dont have money to afford to go to trade school and nobody is going to hire you without knowing anything because we have flooded it with hispanics too, if you mean go get an entry level office job we have outsourced them to india or flooded those with H1B1 visa jeets. So where is there space left to get a job at for young zoomers without any capital?

>>508608841
HHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

>>508608279
I don’t think you understand what AI is. AI is not a person, it is a machine. Sam Altman is a person, who steal others work to train his machine, so he can make money.

>>508606256 (OP)
You are retarded. Its transhumanist leftists like Altman and Zuckerjew that want to steal art from professionals and give it to the corporations

>>508606256 (OP)
>no different than a human being doing the same thing
Dangerous precedent.

>>508614352
Low IQ

>>508607190
I want source code of amazon google and twatter to train my AI on

>>508613499
>but the ai company is charging you to use the ai so they are using other peoples assets to make money so it is copyright infringement

> hire contractor to make me a billboard ad
> that contractor has worked for previous employers to make them billboard ads and it has refined his future works from the experience he had making those
> same contractor had also seen billboard ads when driving
> you just hired a contractor to commit copyright infringement.

Same retarded logic.

>>508606256 (OP)
WTF I LOVE CALIFORNIA NOW

>>508612562
Hard facts

>>508613205
You are now allowed to ”train” on any material you want.

>>508606465
>AI companies are For Profit,
So are all copyrighted artists. That doesn't make it illegal to learn from other copyrighted works.

>>508614580
No because the contractor is creating something from his mind, the AI is just creating combining the works of humans and creating a derivative work from them. AI cannot create anything on its own it is just ctrl c and ctrl v many different peoples work jumbling it together and vomiting it out.
It is basically rebranding other peoples work and selling it to you so yeah if that isnt copyright infringement what is?

>>508611018
If you are careful enough to avoid any of the trademarked terms, yes you probably could.

>>508606256 (OP)
>no different than a human being doing the same thing
If that’s true, then the AI holds the copyright, not the person who prompted it (or the person who programmed the AI). If the AI is sentient enough to learn “as a human does” then a human cannot claim the AI is a “tool” the human used to create art.

Therefore all AI-generated content must also be public domain, as the AI owns the copyright prima facie, and lacks the capability to consent to its license or transfer.

>>508614431
Be real man a human bein hired to make a globohomo artstyle dei mural is no different from what you would call ai slop

>>508610075

Give it time you fucking midwit

>>508606256 (OP)
Pretty sure the judge said training on books you've bought is okay but they're letting the plaintiff go after them for the mass piracy of ebooks.

So a partial win at best and we'll see how fucked they get on the piracy damages.

>>508614826
AI is not a person so it can’t hold any copyright.

>>508614132
>a company
>Jewish
Dumbass.

>>508614846
AI art is significantly more unpleasant to look at than even the worst globohomo corposlop art.

this isn't a left or right issue.
if you support AI you are anti-human and you should be disemployed and prevented from voting

>>508615026
Fine, it amounts to the same thing: no copyright for AI generated works. What matters is, if the AI is “studying” not “stealing”, then the person who uses the AI as a tool is “commissioning” not “utilizing”. That person cannot claim copyright over the AI’s output because in order for copyright to exist, a human author must exercise creative originality. Not a software program.

>>508615129
No way, AI beats basically all bad artists.

>>508615129
I used to love watching medieval history docus while doing cardio now every history channel is full of AI art and AI narrators it is actually just disgusting it makes me want to vomit. I have just gone back to reading books so hey I got to thank AI for helping me avoid brainrot.

>>508606256 (OP)
Good, this would set a horrible precedent.
You wouldn't be able to make any sort of art work which is inspired by an existing artist.

>>508607382
The difference is that with AI, it's all in the hands of wealthy jews instead of humans

>>508614954
That's what they said two years ago and it hasn't improved at all. Every new release low-IQ slop drones cheer at how amazing it is while everyone else vomits in visceral disgust at it.

>>508614760
The example is books. Pirated, specifically hundreds of thousands (millions?) Of books. If someone pirates a book to learn, that is a crime. Whether we take the punishment seriously or not is a separate issue, but to say it is Lawful is not true.

>>508615106
Are you being fucking retarded on purpose? Of course a company can be jewish when it’s owned and run completely by jews

>>508614740
>download free digital woman to train for real women
soon bros

>>508612562
>>508614735

die luddities.. you fucking disgusting jews. i fucking HATE YOU ALL. YOU FUCKING ANTI TECH FUCKS

>>508613374
Because they keep arguing that having an AI digest copyrighted works counts as being "transformative" as the reproduction won't be 100% exact. Which is of course stupid, as it's like saying that selling camrips of movies doesn't violate copyright either.

>>508606256 (OP)

The government will protest AI companies. They cant stop China from doing it so they will allow US companies to do it. Its either that or lose.

>>508615284
It really doesn't. I honestly can't think of a single piece of art I have ever seen that is as fundamentally unpleasant to look at as the "good" examples people give of AI art.

>>508615553
>muh luddites
Kys kike

>>508615553
>SAAAAAAR AI IS SINGULARITY SAR!! GROK SAYS YOU MUST DIE

>>508606256 (OP)
Intellectual property law needs to go and AI is the future.

>>508614954
no i will continue to actually play instruments and record them.

>>508615632
You already named it: All globohomo corposlop art. Every single piece of it. The reason is the malicious intent behind it and the fact that it employs evil while AI is just AI.

>>508615325
Same. Any topic that has any kind of traction on Youtube or any other platform is instantly flooded with 10 billion Indian-run AI slop content that blatantly rips off the actual content creators. Makes it almost impossible to find good content anymore.

>>508606256 (OP)
Based.
Knowledge is freedom.

>>508615553
this isnt a luddite argument this is a anti greed argument.
Make the AI free to use for everybody then do not charge people to use the premium versions and do not dumb down it to force people to pay you to use it.
If you are using the resources of the public you have to give it away to the public to use it for free whichever way they want.
That is all that is being said here.
These companies want to charge you to use the AI that is abusing copyright laws and stealing work to create derivatives.

>>508615835
AI art is far more disordered and evil than any person could ever be. By virtue of simply being produced by a human, it is infinitely superior, regardless of intent.

>>508606256 (OP)
only retards cheer for this.

>>508606256 (OP)
doesn't matter until the Supreme Court decides. there is no way this isn't going to the SC.

>>508606256 (OP)
Yeah Mickey Mouse is going to step on that judge eventually. They're already suing Midjourney for copyright infringement.

>>508614805
>because the contractor is creating something from his mind,
>the AI is just creating combining the works of humans and creating a derivative work from them.
The cognitive dissonance here is unbelievable. You have to be fucking trolling.

>>508615860
They are going to charge you to use the AI while not paying to use the copyrighted materials to teach the AI.
This isnt freedom this is gatekeeping by the rich.

Any other ruling would be fucking ridiculous. If a human being is allowed to draw inspiration from copyrighted material why shouldn't AI?
Luddites BTFO

>>508607780
Because you didn't pay into the jewish court system to copyright your photos.

>>508607342
every single person defending what these billion dollar companies are doing with data, which is stealing it and then charging you for access to their AI is 100% a stupid coomer who is only thinking about using these paid services to create coomer material.

that's the ONLY think they are defending.

>>508615982
Disagree, AI feels just neutral to me, not good or bad. Any good artist can easily beat it while it filters all the useless ones.
Furthermore AI makes it a lot harder for "creatives" to live off corporations which is such an insanely huge boon.

>>508606465
Haven't read the judge's reasoning, but the law allows for transformative use, so all those patreon artists never had a compelling case to begin with.

>>508615982
AI isn't evil. It's just dumb, because it's not part of our reality. Everything it "knows" is merely what we told it. But it has no experiences of its own.
It's essentially a brain in a jar from another dimension.

>>508609733
these stupid retards only think about creating porn with AI, that's why they defend it. And why they hate real artists and writers, but AI is also coming for them later on.

>>508616159
Corporations are people amirite?
Fucking kill yourselves retards

>>508616097
How is this any different from disney slapping copyright on stuff they took from the public domain?
This sort of shits been going on since copyright

>>508616075
THE AI IS USING THE SAME LINE THAT DAVINCI MADE IN THE SAME POSITION JUST ADDING THE LINE THAT PICASSO PAINTED IN A DIFFERENT POSITION.
IT IS JUST ADDING TWO COPIES AND CREATING A DERIVATIVE.
On its own it cannot create anything it is simply copy pasting two different peoples works of art and then selling it to you.
If people using disney and universal assets on their shirts and selling it is illegal then this is illegal too.
This isnt a human learning da vincis and picassos technique its a robot stealing da vincis and picassos painting and copy pasting different sections of them.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or just plain retarded to support corporations gatekeeping a tool and shafting people from royalties to make that tool?

>>508616355
It's evil because of who owns it, dumbass

>>508616075
You can’t prove where a contractor got his ideas from. It could have come from some non-copyrighted aspect of his human experience. With an AI model, you can prove exactly what all the outputs were derived from as long as you have access to the training data. There’s no mystery or ambiguity as to whether or not copyrighted materials were used to train it or not. Whereas with a real person you will never be able to prove that some input or experience later led to them having an idea.

>>508606256 (OP)
So the goal of this was to shield them from the pedofilia charges that were on their way. Otherwise they would have gone for copyright infringement.

>>508607714
Absolutely. A lot of jobs, mine included are basically inertia driven.
It's cheaper to keep a team than to replace decades of infrastructure.
The problem is that with how things are going, every service is being centralized to some huge megacorp, because of scale they can offer more for less.
They can also optimize out most people, especially average or below people out of the workforce.
Where do we go once there is not enough jobs to go around?

It's been said for over a decade that there are too many bullshit makework jobs. What now that the veil is lifted and the adult daycares are closing?
Some people are just not going to be able to keep up at all.
As more people are becoming unemployed, there is less and less demand, or ability to pay for products and services.
The companies that depended on that customer base close... more unemployment... etc.

This spiral is scary to me because I'm too dumb to grasp where it ends other than my demise.

>>508606256 (OP)
But ai that imitates a person is illegal? Does that mean doppelgangers and comedians will soon be going to prison by the dozen? Us prisons will be full of elvises.

>>508615406

Your opinion is wrong, sorry. But thankfully, no one cares because progress is continuing with or without your meaningless consent.

>>508610669
>Imagine when all zoomers can become YouTubers just by asking Alexa to create a video. It's gonna be ends upon of ends of the same soulless AI slop and it's gonna be even more difficult to find good content than it is finding a good movie on netflix currently. If you thought the internet is shit now, then it's gonna get a hole lot worse.


it's already happening. people are creating videos with google veo 3 with zero effort, just a couple prompts. in a couple years everyone is going to be doing it. Hardly anyone is going to be making money online due to the oversaturation of content, just nonstop AI slop.

Imagine 3 out of 5 jeets producing AI content nonstop. That's billions of videos produced every single day.

>>508616392
Because that wasnt right either.
Nobody agreed with that, that too is gatekeeping from the rich.
They are making a supercomputer and not paying people whose resources they are using to make that supercomputer.
Like making a house and not paying anybody to use their bricks. Do you understand?

>>508608181
The rules are too keep regular people down not stop jews from fucking everyone over

>>508614760
You're a fucking retard.
>all uh duh copywight are 4 da profit
Oh yeah, dumbass? Explain to me how you copyright a digital picture.

Sucks that I'll be seeing more AI art on art sites, but at least most of the art will be very degenerate instead of simple cute art.

>>508607342
You're going to be out of a job too because of AI and I hope you remember you wrote this. No one will care about your plight. Starve.

>>508616534
The ruling itself is on pretty shaky ground because it "learns like a human" which isn't really how it works. LLM's don't learn, they just absord massive amounts of information and spit something out based on your prompt. A good example are those AI podcasters going on, you can generate a podcast conversation between two people talking about World War 2 but all they'll ever do is just recite the events from a wikipedia article. It doesn't offer any actual insight or opinions because it isn't human.

>>508606256 (OP)
They're starting project bluebeam, whatever you do, do not board the ships, frens.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uY_xgaPRYxA

>>508613477
My Twitter feed names the Jew harder and without the freemason cope. Times are changing, Boomer. Collecting dusty old books is a vanity project at this point.

>>508616347
Youre thinking of "Write me a story about iPhones in the style of Dr. Zeuss". What if someone is selling Facts (non-fiction) and the AI reproduces those Facts? No transformation occurred. Either they must let archive.org do what they've been doing, or they make all of it illegal. It's a double standard in favor of AI kikes.

>>508616752
every single person defending these AI companies is a coomer. they are just thinking about their waifus and porn that they can get with AI. They could care less if everyone on earth becomes a slave unable to earn money as long as they can get their porn

>>508616752
Don't worry they will throw UBI at the low iq fags and that will quell them while the productive people who want to create and be productive will be isolated and destroyed so the jew oligarchs will never be threatened.
Class mobility killed, total neoserfdom achieved.

>>508606256 (OP)
>district of california
so no one actually cares

>>508616208
For real, these dumb faggots can't see the forest for the trees. Though it might end up being a blessing to be too braindead to understand how civilization is collapsing around them

>>508616539
I don't think he was arguing that tech can't improve. He was just criticizing the "quality" of AI generated content. Which was valid, because it IS awful and DOES expose you for having pedestrian taste.

>>508616880
>collecting dusty old books
You can download it right now from archive.org for free, turbofaggot. Your Twitterfeed is fed by people who read books.

>>508616807
Exactly, and that's why buying into the AI hype is the hallmark of the NPC

>>508616807
In germany they have an ai that runs a radio station with the voice and personality of a deceased radio presenter who was/is very popular.

>>508616539
>it'll be so good. in 2 weeks

>>508617116
>puppetering the corpse of a man to spew out propaganda
what a life.

>>508606256 (OP)
>anti AI leftards
bro I am so over this concern trolling anti-woke bullshit
this is so fucking kike coded you have to legitimately be in the single digit IQ to fall for it

>>508617234
It's only about music and his son started the project.

>>508617064
The tech is cool, don't get me wrong but the mythicalization of the technology is fucking weird. It isn't sentient for fucks sake, people can trick chatgpt into say and doing stupid shit all the time.

>>508617116
Yeah that's the kind of scenario I'd like to avoid. We don't need dead celebrities shitting up about media forever.

>>508616988
>t. California derangement syndrone

>>508616368
Seethe harder about your made up bullshit job

>>508607510
Seventh post, best post.

>>508616347
Disney and DreamWorks say otherwise. That is the more important case.

>>508606256 (OP)
Interesting. Very nice. Let’s see that logic applied to the entertainment industry…

>>508616807
lol wut
Is this sarcasm?

>>508606256 (OP)
AIs don't learn, they are trained. What they are trained on before they become essentially static is entirely arbitrary and hand-picked by human beings. AI companys need a common public media pool to train their slop generators.

>>508617444
In any case, it inhibits progress. But so is any technology that makes life easier/promotes decadence.

>>508606256 (OP)
The only viable long-term solution for artists and AI models to coexist is for artists to contract to companies to produce proprietary training content.

>>508616577
I understand
But its basically entrenched in copyright history that certain people can get away with it, so good luck stopping this.

What will decide this is which side the corpos want to side with

>>508617868
That may be the case now. But hardware is getting cheaper and more powerful. At some point, people will keep AIs like pets. Or train them as freedom fighters and release them onto the internet.

>>508618125
>What will decide this is which side the corpos want to side with
the corpos will choose the side that guarantees their stock prices will remain stable in the short term so tehy will fuck over people.
Honestly the future is just looking grim.
And seeing people on here cheer them on has been so blackpilling.

>>508616422
>>THE AI IS USING THE SAME LINE THAT DAVINCI MADE IN THE SAME POSITION JUST ADDING THE LINE THAT PICASSO PAINTED IN A DIFFERENT POSITION.
>IT IS JUST ADDING TWO COPIES AND CREATING A DERIVATIVE.
You have a fundamentally flawed view of how any of this works, and you are being willfully ignorant to justify your own delusions.

>>508616520
>I'm too dumb to grasp where it ends other than my demise.
it ends at your demise.

>>508617854
No he's right. It will always be garbage in-garbage out. Look how lobotomized Grok has been in just the 1 year it's been out. It's literally just wikipedia.

>>508618319
The AI cannot create it is simply pasting other peoples work and mashing it together.
If I cannot add sonic and minnie mouse on a t shirt and sell it for profit they should not be allowed to mash other peoples intellectual property and sell it for profit.
For God's sake are you people really siding with jewish corporations over normal people just to feel better about yourselves?

>>508606256 (OP)
>giving machines human rights
Before long they will have voting rights and will be endlessly making copies of themselves infecting every single system.

>>508618471
Then start ur own project. Feed an ai only with technical and fascist literature. Then release it with the job of securing its existence as a worm/botnet and at the same time bring about the victory of fascism.

>>508618853
>implying jews wont nuke any place you host the AI on

>>508618514
>The AI cannot create it is simply pasting other peoples work and mashing it together.
Thats not how AI programs work you stupid dumb fuck

>>508619068
that is exacly how it works.
The AI doesnt know what a diagonal line is until it learns from a human who made a diagonal line.
You morons are humanizing computer algorithms.

>>508606256 (OP)
copyright is retarded, copyright should only apply to actual physical products and only for 12 months.

>>508607510
>Which means SCOTUS is going to have to resolve the issue.
They are going to have to decide if China wins the ai race by default, America is essentially handicapping themselves if they prohibit this type of training

>>508619051
Hence the decentralized approach and no connection to the origin.

>>508619388
there is no place you can put it on that is accesible to the audience you want to reach that kikes wont nuke.

>>508619297
china made their AI publically accesible to the general public look at deepseek.
American jews want the corporations to steal your money to use something your own data built that they never paid you for.

>>508619292
There should be no copyright or patent law at all. It's just jewish nonsense that hinders progress and costs billions to protect it. If you invent or create something, there are endless ways to make money without legal protection of your ideas.

>>508618514
>it is simply pasting other peoples work and mashing it together
It's more complicated than that. A better way of thinking about it would be to think of training data (images, text, whatever) as data points on a graph, and an LLM is the function you try to fit to the data. The model tries to fit the provided data and the model can be used to interpolate approximations that reflect the data from a particular input, but it doesn't generally duplicate exact results, just a "closest fit".

The more you narrow or massage the data, of course, the closer the model replicates it exactly - it's why most people who use LLMs to produce high quality output go through many iterations or use things like Low Rank Adaptation (LoRA) models made from smaller, more refined datasets to fine-tune output.

>>508619671
copyright is understandable for a year so you can get a heads up on a product you created and establish your brand. patent is retarded and should not be allowed since all discoveries should be for the betterment of humanity and benefit all. it's stupid that you can patent rounded corners and now if you dare to make your product with rounded corners you get sued by a kike

>>508619526
Today, there are also huge botnets that extend across vast numbers of networks and computers without the owners of these networks and computers knowing anything about it. Automated software is nothing new. Ddos attacks work almost exclusively with the help of such networks.

>>508618471
You don't even know what you're talking about, though.
There's a massive difference between agentic execution -- like looking up a website and reading it off to you to answer your question, and LLMs learning.

>>508619716
Okay so by your own definition it is just how good the iteration is at hiding the data it is stealing.
If you had no data to feed it it would not create shit.
So why should companies not pay people to use their data or at least make the AI free to use without limits for the people whose data they are using?

>>508620179
>So why should companies not pay people to use their data or at least make the AI free to use without limits for the people whose data they are using?
this, if AI is trained on data not created inhouse then it should be free to use and available to everyone

>>508619921
By copyright, I rather meant protection of intellectual creations. There is not much to be said against the protection of trademarks except the costs.

>>508611018
>Oh, so you think I could just recreate all the works of famous authors, changing a few words here and there and not be sued into oblivion?
That would fail to meet the standard for fair use.

>>508620179
Think about it this way.
If you read the word "Teddy" a thousand times in your life, you know that 80% of the time, the next word is "Bear", unless "Teddy" is preceded by the word "President", then the next word is 90% "Roosevelt"
So when someone asks you to complete the sentence "The kid picked up his Teddy" and you say "Bear", which of the 810 times you read "Teddy Bear" are you plagiarizing? None of them. You just have a mathematical likelihood of what the next word is going to be.

>>508620386
even intelectual creation is finiky. lets say someone paints a painting of specific subject, why can't I as a painter paint the same if I am capable and then sell it with my signature on it? just because you painted a building from specific angle and lighting doesn't mean I'm now not allowed to paint the same. whole thing is retarded. but mah monet, but mah vangoh.. if you want vangoh then buy one with vangoh signature for millions but if you want same style and subject for $1000 then buy mine, it's that fuckin simple.

>>508607342
Jeet

>>508620048
>LLMs learning.
They just get overriden in a day when the poojet programmer goes through and starts coping about problematic answers. I've trained Grok to tell the truth about Holohoax numbers, only to come back a couple of days later and see the same 6 million meme answer from Wikipedia. Sorry guys, your LLMs are junk in-junk out. And there are too many shabbos pajeets for us to keep re-training and re-training over and over.

>>508620616
If you dont have any data to feed it so teh algorithm doesnt know that 80 percent of the time the next word is bear then the algorithm wouldnt know shit.
So therefore you either a) pay the people whose data you are using to teach your algorithm on to know things or b) make it free to use without limits to the public

>>508620179
>If you had no data to feed it it would not create shit.
The same is true of any tool. A hammer doesn't hammer nails on its own. A word editor doesn't write emails on its own. An LLM doesn't generate content without input.

>So why should companies not pay people to use their data or at least make the AI free to use without limits for the people whose data they are using?
They should. Any and all base LLM models should either be required to compensate all sources of data they use for training sets OR should be required to make access to their model and its source code free.

As I said earlier in the thread - the long-term solution to settling concerns over intellectual property rights is for companies building AI models to paying artists to produce proprietary training data or artists taking commissions for developing training data for LoRAs.

>>508621031
>A hammer doesn't hammer nails on its own.
yet the company pays the worker to hammer the nails, the company pays a person to write the email the word editor edits.
>They should.
That has been my entire point this whole thread yet I keep getting attacking by coomers who cannot see what is coming aside from cooming.

>>508618514
>The AI cannot create it is simply pasting other peoples work and mashing it together.
The future police officer shows up to grace us with his room temperature IQ takes on subjects he is confident he knows a lot about.

>>508621238
We get it, you have erection problems and cant jerk off to porn like a normal person, tough shit

>>508607382
>Now, in the 21st century, computers have evolved (thanks to humans) to have the ability do this.
false
If you ask the computer a strange question it cannot copy/paste the answer to, it fails the question, no matter how easy. All the computer is doing is copy/posting pieces of other peoples' work.

If you believe AI is smart, then start asking it questions in your domain of expertise and see how it goes.

>>508620756
That's why I said
>>508619671
>There should be no copyright or patent law at all.
The whole thing is even more obvious with music. There has been no such thing as a new invention in music for ages and yet everything “new” is protected. Fortunately, there are no patents on food recipes. But for some time now there have been patents on DNA sequences. Totally crazy.

>>508621284
You are a pajeet so I understand how a goyslop generator algorithm amazes you.

>>508621566
You have no idea how AI works, tumblr artist

>>508609733
If this "AI slop" was so bad then nobody would buy it, isn't that what capitalism says?

>>508621653
kek keep switching vpns anon you might win a debate if you suck corpokike cock some more. Just keep at it lil feller.

>wahhhhh AI companies need to compensate websites their programs learn from

Bullshit, if I draw fan art of anime, and i spent years learning from looking at anime movies and tv shows, does that mean every time i draw i need to send a damn check to studio ghibli?

>>508621834
>its impossible for more than one person to disagree with me

LOL

>>508606465
bitch what would non-whites do if they couldn't see something and then just replicate it on their own? starting over all the time on everything so faggot drug addict artists can keep getting high isn't worth it

>>508621856
if you are selling the fan art for profit yeah.
Please for the love of God do an asvab test, I just want to see how low your iq test is. It will be hilarious.

>>508621238
You kind of have no one to blame for but yourself for that because you keep making a lot of posts that try to simultaneously make incorrect arguments about what LLM models are like or how they work alongside arguments about how they should be free or should fairly compensate the people who generate their training data.

The latter is something I don't think most people would disagree with.

>>508620790
LLMs don't 'learn' from you talking to them.
The 'learn' from datasets like
>>508620616
Even if they interred your conversation with the LLM into its dataset, your discussion is just one datapoint amongst a trillion

>>508621566
You seem like the sort of person that actually believes that every written work is just ripping of a dictionary.

>>508622090
Post hand with time stamp.

>>508606256 (OP)
>ai art is derivative
Lol, so?

>>508606561
so you think it's illegal for china to copy something from another country lol? fucking monkey retard fuck, there is no full on globohomo doing shit like that yet, USA can't do shit about it because it's not illegal, it's not even logical

This means that piracy is now legal so long as you say "I'm training my AI." Retard judge.

>>508620847
Every time you get paid, you should pay your teachers for teaching you to read n shit

>>508622000
>if you are selling the fan art for profit yeah.
Stop sucking corporate dick, faggot

>>508606256 (OP)
>AI
Every time I think we've somehow reached the bottom of absolute retardness the world just has to prove me wrong.

>>508622198
No. It doesn't mean that.

>>508622204
Nope thats a skill I am not stealing my teachers spelling and doing ctrl c and ctrl v on my papers with it.

>>508615553
DO NOT REDEEM

>>508622277
Yes. You are. Mentally.

>>508622198
Copying and pasting a data file is not the same as an AI generated indepenent work, bozo the clown

>>508606256 (OP)
why do leftists love copyright laws now?

>>508622265
Yes, it clearly does.

Having your shit on the internet in any capacity now means you have absolutely no ownership of it and it can be taken from you to train a jeet to pretend to be a robot.

>>508622231
kek you are literally supporting a jewish corporation to use peoples work for free and to charge people to use their tool they built from the data of people which they didnt pay anybody for.
How would you feel right now if you had not eaten breakfast, anon?

>>508622231
You are both arguing for corporate interests. Just on different sides. Trump wants to put the ai industry under extreme protection and heavily subsidize it.

>>508622335
Nope my technique is different and is special to my own hand, and also I am a human not a ai algorithm doing this.
Since earlier you all were saying that ai doesnt learn like a human then me learning like a human is entirely different to AI.
>>508622489
I am arguing that people get free access to the product that their data is being exploited for anon thinks jews charging you money for a tool they built with your data and that they did not pay you for is ok.

>>508622407
>use peoples work for free
How the fuck is a program learning from images on a public website "using peoples work for free"?

How in the fuck is that different than me looking at a website showing examples of baroque art so i can then create my own baroque style art?

>>508622639
>then
*than

>>508621556
I agree, just iterated further. and like you said with music, idea that music can be copyrighted is super retarded too. midget faggot bruno sued miley claiming she stole his song and they are nothing alike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekzHIouo8Q4

vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7KNmW9a75Y

>>508622400
no? you were always allowed to make a work derivative of another. if someone made a good video game you were always allowed to make something like it.

>>508622642
>How in the fuck is that different than me looking at a website showing examples of baroque art so i can then create my own baroque style art?
because you are a human and can create things with that style of art, the ai will simply just steal the current framework and copy paste it in small shreds.
You know what anon you are right sorry buddy you are right.
God bless the jews and God bless the AI.

>>508622364
>why do leftists love copyright laws now?
Libtards always did. Communists and true libertarians have not.

>>508622265
>>508622339
>>508621987
READ THE FIRST SENTENCE, YOU DUMB FAGGOTS
>INTRODUCTION
>An artificial intelligenee firm downloaded for free millions of copyrighted books in digital form from pirate sites on the internet.

I still cannot believe there are people who actually think that AI programs just cut and paste media like some damn collage

Someone show me even one example of that, ill wait

>>508622034
This. Actively conversing with an LLM doesn't alter anything about its training data or the correlations it uses to determine output. It's why releasing an updated model is such a big deal.

>>508606256 (OP)
>why yes, machines can get free information that human labor produced
>and if machines fail they can try again whereas if humans fail, oops, your out (of school, but thanks for paying tuition, chumps!)
>and machines only get trained by the best and brightest, no whitey

>>508622789
>the ai will simply just steal the current framework and copy paste it in small shreds.
smartest ai hater

>>508622789
>the ai will simply just steal the current framework and copy paste it in small shreds

THAT
IS
NOT
HOW
AI
PROGRAMS
WORK
YOU
FUCKING
RETARD

>>508622034
>The 'learn' from datasets like
How about primary sources, dumbass? What if I give it a primary source, your jeetslop LLM accepts it, then next day it's back to the Wikipedia answer?

Saar?

>>508608512
Resulting output can still be infringing if it is too close to the original work. This ruling is limited to the dataset/learning process.

>>508606256 (OP)
You dumb cunt, this isn't a L v R issue. I'm sure you lack the brain cells to be creative, so let me spell this out: ANYTHING YOU CREATE CAN BE STOLEN AND PROFITED FROM.
That is what this means.

>>508621530
>All the computer is doing is combining pieces of other peoples' words it has encountered before
I hate to break it to you but that's what you're doing when you speak as well. What do you think regional dialect and slang is?

>>508623029
Datasets is a generic term. You could give it a data set consisting entirely of primary sources

>>508622789
>just steal the current framework and copy paste it in small shreds
And they sell the technology to do this, not the end product.

>>508622887
For every person who believe LLMs literally copypaste other people's content, there's a person who believes LLMs "think" and "learn" and are genuinely creative.

They're both completely wrong.

>>508622954
>>508623003
Dude you guys won it is ok AI is good thank you you made me change my opinion.
I love the goyslop. You can now rest easy in that you have gained a new supporter. Just please keep on eating the goyslop.

>>508606465
Typical workflow of literally most artists I know in 3D, digital art, clothes and fashion, and games dev:
1) go to google images
2) search for [reference material name]
3) save to computer
4) put in a layer of an editor
5) mash things up a bit, re-align parts of the image
6) sketch over the edges to get a tidier look
7) use that sketch to create an outline
8) draw the rest of it
And yes, mostly everyone they know too.
I've even done it myself at times, although I prefer not tracing over the edges myself, I like sketching it next to it, to use it as inspiration, I found the sketch method more noisy and time-wastey. I just draw the outline then the rest of the fucking owl.

Most artists are fucking hypocrites.
The only artists that screech the loudest about AI BAD are Deviantfart tier, massive fucking narcisists / attention whores, and niche fetish artists who no longer have a majority control of said fetish because anyone can generate that shit in a few seconds. Seriously, browsing the fetish boards on this site is funny as fuck seeing them seethe over AI, /d/ and /aco/ especially.

>>508623303
Nigga you need to stop fucking seething. It's goddamned embarrassing.

>>508623154
You didn't answer the question. Lobotomized junk tech. Wikipedia search engine.

>>508622887
>That AI result at the top of every search is acksully thinking stuff!

>>508622809
>if you get ideas from a book you pirated they belong to the author of the pirated book

>>508623360
Seems like a Kike strategy in this thread is to immediately attempt to reframe the issue into "AI Photos". Youre not one of them are you, anon? See >>508622809

>>508623610
>The Kike AI company DOES NOT owe compensation to millions of authors it pirated from to train its AI
What an insane faggot you are

>>508623184
Roughly speaking, they take complex systems, break them down into small pieces and reassemble these pieces under certain rules. And ideally, they “learn” these rules as they break them down. Or what else?

>>508623516
It's not thinking, but it's not, strictly speaking, just copypasting. You use data to build correlations between X, Y, Z, etc. to interpolate X(Y) or Z(X+1). The only difference is LLMs generalize this to strings, sets of strings, image data, video data, etc.

>>508611681
Because they're not copying it.

>>508623840
No it doesn’t. The AI is essentially a person who uses what they see to make new content, like all people do.

>>508606256 (OP)
This just undercut Trumps no celeb AI porn law. As I said, when you use an algo to alter something the original no longer matters and it becomes your own free expression and art. Its exactly like PGP encryption, which was ruled a form of *free speech and expression* despite just being a cryptographic code.

>>508623840
Correct. At most it owes them the value of one copy of each book of theirs it used. It did not redistribute the copyrighted works.

Ai as written by developers is the developers free expression and no AI can be limited by law, as it would be censorship of speech.

>>508624067
The company *pirated* books to "birth" the AI it charges people money for.

>>508624135
>it does not owe them compensation
>OK it owes them compensation
Make up your mind dumbass

>>508624207
The technology, the input and the output are different things. Also legally.

>>508608173
no, its more like the knowledge or information you gleaned from watching that stolen movie, is still valid. lets say you pirated an instructional video on how to tie a noose. then, you used that knowledge to make and sell nooses. or drew pictures of nooses and sold those. or wrote a song about tying nooses and sold that song. is that stuff no longer valid because you acquired the information from a stolen source? do you owe the creator of the noose instructional video all your profits related to nooses?

the company should absolutely be held at fault for stealing that shit in the first place, but that all the content produced from it is stolen? nah. judge was smart here.

>>508622789
>copy paste it in small shreds.
It's amazing how many people think this is what the AI models do because of one shit image spread about by a retard on Twitter who thought img2img is how ALL AI works kek
That was YEARS ago as well, it still persists today.
These AI models essentially encode the relations of edges in to a network not too different to how the brain does it. We know this because we've literally used AI to decode imagery encoded in to the brain and at an abstract high-dimensional layer, it's the same messy structured representation of how the world is around is. Mind you that was just our spatial awareness, the part that encodes inner thoughts works differently.

>>508623756
Sorry I'm just catching up on the thread and only just saw this is more a case of books.
Same issue applies though, a few writers I know write down a bunch of ideas from media they know, just loose ideas, and smash them together to and write a simple summary to see how it sounds. They like it, they flesh it out a bit more.
Still like it? Go with it.
I used the technique myself for writing some short stories and fleshing out some dreams I had in to game ideas.
Mind maps for creative works like this are used all the time.
Whether it involves you literally looking at a book you own or in this case mass piracy doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things.
They do deserve to get fucked for actual piracy, but so too do many millions of artists.
Some of the biggest game series out there are based on piracy, knowingly so. The entirety of HOLLYWOOD was founded on piracy.
Shit man, I remember back when that huge drama came out with Mass Effect where loads of artists showed they had stole their work and done basic ass tweaks at best.

>>508624342
>pajeet does not speak english

>>508624441
>ESL Yiddish Kike doesn't understand the difference between piracy and compensation

>>508606256 (OP)
since when did it become left wing to dislike soulless ai slop and cherish human creativity?

>>508624267
If I take a bunch of books and throw them in a wood chipper the wood chipper is not illegal simply because the books are copywrited. All it did was take A and turn it into B.

If I print a bunch of PDF books off online for free, it doesnt matter if those books have rights, if I want to turn them into mulch the tool for turning them into mulch is not illegal, even if I sell the mulched printed up PDFs.

The AI is a wood chipper, the mulch is porn. The porn represents art. Fun fact, if you take a copywrited image, like J-Laws nudes, and change one pixel - its now your property, and you own it. Your art. Its not the original image anymore, you changed it, that made it your expression.

>>508624370
that's why jews are so keep on destroying family unit, so your father cannot teach you everything grampa passed on to him. one of their methods is require licensing, certifications, diplomas in order for you to exercise your expertise. how dare your father teach you carpentry and thus you bypass our overpriced jew schools and apprenticeship programs.

>>508624561
Take the poo to the loo.

>>508606256 (OP)
I never got anti-AI fags when it comes to art. Every single artist takes inspiration from someone else's art, its more common in the game industry. When an AI does the same thing, it's unethical? If you train it long enough with enough data, the underline art is likely not even noticeable, just like an artist "taking inspiration".

>>508623154
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_9b017908-7394-4882-a05e-c974b81b3a0c

Your wikiLLM is trash, saar

>>508623105
the only people who think AI is smart have no expertise at all
even /pol/ has noticed none of the AI can correctly answer questions about Hitler or Jews because it memorized nothing but propaganda

>>508624592
In your Scenario 1, someone paid for the books you throw into the woodchipper, unless they were stolen directly from the publisher.

In Scenario 2, you are committing the crime of piracy, which you absolve Kikes Techfags of, for some reason.

>>508624887
>the crime of piracy
Holy shit a shill for the RIAA in the current year plus 10.

>>508615406
>two years ago and it hasn't improved at all
Why do people let their emotions drive them to the point of making silly, obviously false posts like this?

>>508617868
>What they are trained on before they become essentially static
so like any other artist that has a "style"? Why Dragon Ball and Dragon Quest have the same look to it in terms of their characters?

>>508624775
According to jeetslop LLM, Reddit.com is more reliable than primary contemporary Red Cross figures

GARBAGE IN --> GARBAGE OUT

>>508624370
Yep, exactly.
A funny instance of this came up recently in vtubing of all places.
There was some AI dress that was spread around on Twitter, unknown to people at the time.
A metric fuckload of fanart was made of various vtubers up until the news of that, OOH NOOO, the dress was AI this whole time!!!
This, naturally, peeved a few artists, but most never gave a fuck. It didn't make the work they put in to those dresses null and void, that was still effort.

I myself have used AI to make quick references of certain parts of dresses, like frilly skirts, or mesh clothing, etc.
I could have also went on to Google or Pinterest or some other shit to look for references.
Want to know something most artists don't do - pay for those references. They'll slap that shit in to a huge canvas in Photoshop and that's it.
I've seen artists STREAM themselves doing this live.
Yet nobody questions it. Why? It's just exactly the same shit that AI does. AI literally constructed the pages to allow them to find those images in the first place - the mass scraping of millions of websites is a thing some people consider immoral and unethical, some consider it illegal.
The likes of Google, Microsoft and OpenAI have and are still being sued / fined / investigated for scraping websites without permission, there's tools designed to fuck with web scrapers by dynamically constructing fake webpages.

tl;dr everything is fucked, people do the same shit AI does every day and don't question it because they have "agency" and are a "living being". lol

>>508607714
Being an artist has never been a real job.

>>508625036
I am for Socializing books. The fact is that it is not Lawful. Either Archive.org gets off the hook, or Mark Zuckerberg needs to pay. You dumb faggot.

In itself, it's funny that jewish copyright stands in the way of the jewish surveillance state. We should use the situation to abolish copyright, introduce an ubi and then still prevent the surveillance state.

>>508624887
A book becomes public domain when it is online in PDF form. Nobody who downloads a PDF violates the law. Potentially the host of the PDF could face liability, but probably not. Especially if they dont profit off it, as you cant be sued for hand typing up an entire chapter of a book. See pic related.

In the first scenario you might have paid a dollar, or they might have been donated in a "free" bin. It doesnt matter, because turning A into B isnt illegal. Turning said books into mulch isnt illegal, and there have been court cases over a related concept called first sale. In about 2009 Wiley and Sons or some shit went after this gook who was buying books in Malaysia and selling them for 15x the price in the US, university textbooks since shitskin countries get them for 200$ when the US pays 3k, and in India theyre 8 dollars. Paper is a little thinner, but its the same information. Sometimes they change the wording, or the practice questions in shitskin countries so youd fail in the US if you had their book, to discourage that.

Anyways once a book is bought yes you own it. So that actually backs you up, can you reprint and sell the book no. But can you take the book and mulch it, then sell the mulch as something it wasnt originally yes. Can you take a copywrited image and change it, and sell it yes. Can you take a copywrited book, then take parts of it, but not the entire thing, and re-incorporate them into a much more complex and distorted form of information or speech of course, and profit yes. Clearly as the judge ruled. Especially if the AI found it online, on a readily available free pdf. Sue the website host. Too late.

>>508624887
>>508625369
There. The entire first chapter of Fry The Brain. I just posted it, legal. Bonus: I added the teddy bear, so its my art. Its a funny contrast to him setting up a terrorist operation, then going on about Ted.

>>508625208
Why did you capitalize lawful?

>>508625369
>>508625478
>A book becomes public domain when it is online in PDF form.
Public Domain is a legal term. And you did not, even remotely, define it correctly.

>>508625085
its different if you ask a.i to recreate the entire matrix movie perfectly, frame by frame, id id argue that "remake the entire matrix frame by frame but replace just neo with andre the giant and make agent smith warwick davis" shouldnt be something you can just sell by itself (but a.i that can do that for you? sure) and the reasoning behind that gets real weird fast. but in this case, if its that simple, then its got that nice simple answer.

like what happens if you steal colonel sanders personal home video of how to make kfc, and the 11 herbs and spices, and then you ask a.i to give you the recipe of kfc, and then make chicken and sell it under your own brand? a.i formulated chicken recipes? AFCR?

>>508625134
why?
i guess all the great works of arts our ancestors produceed where worthless then, unlike the cancer tech bros constantly unleash on society.
kys jeet

>>508625571
When Referring to a Defined Term in a Legal Document
- If a statute, contract, or court ruling explicitly defines "Lawful" as a term of art, it may be capitalized throughout the text to indicate its special meaning.
- Example:
"Under Section 5, 'Lawful' refers only to conduct authorized by state statute."*

>>508625607
No youre right, but I mean that in the sense that it becomes public domain as its in the public domain, and thus since its freely available its not stealing it because it was legal to download in the first place. And then change it. No you cant reprint it and sell it, that would be public domain. 25 years after its copywrited or 50 or whatever, like how people can make Disney Mickey Mouse porn now year youre right. Still a cherrypick.

Its similar to the concept of doxxing, which isnt even illegal. But to make the point if you type in "Shitface McDickerson Address" or say "Nick Fuentes Address" and it says in the first result before you even open the page "Yea he lives at 1234 shitface dickerson street" - and you start going around telling other people where he lives, that was not doxxing. That was public domain information. Publicly available. If the guy has a business, and he registers his business to his real address in his name etc, thats not doxxing. Thats publicly available information, which is why Sniperwolf didnt dox anyone, retard doxxed himself.

The AI didnt hack into a private archive, it web crawled like anyone else for those books. Not piracy.

>>508625873
Okay well you didn’t cite the legal document. I’m afraid you’ve committed a heckin Infringmenet :^)

>>508606256 (OP)
>learn from them

What is learning? What is thinking? What is thought?

AI is called ARTIFICIAL for a reason.

What is a pen? Is it just the shape? No much deeper. It is the usage. What does it do? Write. What is writing? Using symbols to represent thoughts. What is a thought?

How do you count "one" pencil? Your brain looks at an object and thinks this represents one pencil. What if I shave the pencil down? Is it still one? Is it 90% of a pencil? So what is the concept of a pencil?

AI is a bunch of autistic retards thinking they reduce the infinite universe down to a mathematical equation. It is black hole thinking and misses the bigger picture.

>>508626074
In no sense does it "become Public Domain". That is 100% wrong. It is IN the public domain, just as much as parking your car on the street places your car IN public domain.

Doxxing is based on intent. So following that, the intent of Kike Techfags is profit, not universal knowledge.

>>508626222
Form follows function, NIGGER

What is navel gazing?

>>508626360
Im not using the traditional legal definition of public domain which yes requires X numbers of years before the original right holder loses exclusivity. Im saying if the AI found it on a PDF online, it was freely available and so its not the AIs fault it got freely available information and then most importantly, didnt actually just start spouting the entire book off but merely incorporated its contents into a knowledge pool.

>>508625819
ok if gay-i can make this and I can see andre the giant squash warwick davis I guess it can slide

This judge (and most judges) are corrupt retarded kike faggots though.

>>508624754
>I never got anti-AI fags when it comes to art. Every single artist takes inspiration from someone else's art
This is fedora tipping reddit atheism level reasoning. The difference is that people who are inspired by other people's work have souls. Machines do not. That is expressed in the work and it affects you subconsciously. The problem with ai is not that it is infringing copyright by learning from scraped data. The problem is that it is soulless slop that will enable the jews in media to further degrade the human mind for even better profit margins. In 10 years ALL pop music is going to be ai generated and they won't tell you. "Artists" will go from being industry plants to 100% industry fabrications and the only audio the masses will ingest is going to be fine tuned to exploit their brains just like how they get food scientists to slopify and weaponize the food. This kind of thing is going to utterly destroy society. Art is important.

>>508626360
Also doxxing isnt illegal, and no its not based on intent to spread something people already know. If you find an antifa post of doxxed proud boys, and for some reason. Okay lets restart. If youre Nick Fuentes and you find an antifa doxx post online about a Patriot Front member, and spread that (he actually did that) Nick Fuentes did not doxx PF. Antifa did, Fuentes is a stupid nigger helping antifa and practicing antifascism as a civic nationalist himself with many jew friends and nigger friends he bragged about, but no he didnt doxx them.

Doxxing is when you personally find hidden information and bring it to light. Its not when you repeat other peoples already spread information.

>I'll go to a bookstore
>Photocopy every page
>Sell it

Since a human has the same level of access it's all gucci

>>508622265
Shut the fuck up, kike.

>>508622339
kys moron, do NOT talk to me

>>508616938
I refuse to believe they will give UBI to the masses. Not a chance in the US anyways.

>>508626527
His reply to you was actually even more pedantic than that. He took issue with you saying X “was public domain” instead of that X is “in the public domain,” not realizing that public domain can function as an adjective

What's the word on A.I and using someone's image? I want to make a video of prime super models taking huge sloppy farts.

>>508626780
Why are you against piracy? Time to grow up

>>508626844
Pretty much yea, Im being polite because he has an NS flag.

>>508626869
>taking farts
What did he mean by this

>>508626990
I want to aim my butthole directly in their faces as they take my farts and let it marinade their lungs with the aroma.

>>508626415

What is the form for? Why is it shaped like that? To fit in the hand. Why does it fit in the hand? To write, to share thoughts. What are thoughts?

Both are equally important.

Again as I stated earlier, you are looking for pure logic in an infinite universe. You are looking for past present future in infinity.

>>508627167
But you answered your own question. As long as it can fit in the hand and still write, it’s a pencil

>>508616437
> you can't prove a person's inspiration without the source
> you can't prove an AIs inspiration (without the source)
Hmm...

>>508616422
This anon is right at calling you ignorant >>508618319

>>508622277
Have you ever drawn a persons face? With two eyes? A nose? A mouth? Ears? Where did you get that inference? If you've ever seen my face, I never consented to that but I was one of many faces that reenforced your understanding of a human face. Pay me my royalties right now.

>>508606256 (OP)
This was always going to the Supreme Court, one Jews opinion doesn't American law make.

>>508626527
>>508626844
This is so stupid. Whether capitalized or not, as an adjective "public domain/Public Domain" means property of the public. At no point does a file become public domain merely because it was uploaded online, for the same reason your car does not become public domain merely because you parked it in the street. It's even worse because the AI Techfags are selling what they stole, and a car thief gets less punishment than someone who steals a car and sell it (2 charges).
>>508626687
Youre right, I didnt realize that was a state by state law. People vs Goldberg is California only

>>508627315

What does it mean to write? Is a soda can a pencil? I can write with liquid from the soda. What is writing? Expressing thoughts with symbols. What are thoughts?

>>508627385
>one Jews opinion doesn't American law make
>he doesnt know

>>508606256 (OP)
>a computer software is a person that can learn, think and create
As long as real humans who are on the side of humanity still exist, you're eventually going to be eliminated along with the clankers you worship and all of your fellow trannyhumanists who love playing at being God.