All I've seen are excuses, insults, and childish nonsense comments.
It’s a “joke”.
No shit. And I'm saying it's a stupid joke.
charonn0
joined 2 years ago
Based on the show they've put on in Ukraine, and leaving aside nuclear weapons, I don't think the Russian military is a credible threat to NATO.
If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.
If the output is public domain--that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI's permission--then I side with OpenAI.
Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn't grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.
I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators' IP rights, AI companies' interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn't get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.
That's just one more interpretation to add to the ones I mentioned.
Which is fundamentally my point. Had the OP used something that is actually happening then it would be harder to interpret the message in unintended ways. And it would be much more readily accepted by Americans like myself who do not see themselves as evil, stupid, malicious, or any of the other insults that necessarily follow from any interpretation the OP.