randominternetperson

danox said:

mfryd said:

danox said:

mfryd said:

It's a complicated topic.

There are good points on both sides of the training question.  On one hand, AI programs are being trained based on the hard work of previous human artists.  The AI companies are profiting, but the original artists get nothing. 

On the other hand, the AI is not doing anything new.  It's common for individuals to study the work of others, and use that study to inform their work.  When interviewed, great directors often discuss how they have studied the works of great directors to learn their techniques and style.  The AI programs are simply really good at this.

My understanding, is that an art student can study the works of a current artist, and produce new works in that style.   I don't believe an artist's style is protectable by copyright.  What an artist can't do, is to produce work that is essentially a copy of an existing copyrighted work, or that contains copyrighted elements (including copyrighted characters).  An artist also has to be careful that work done in someone else's style is not represented as being that artist's work.  If I were to write a book in the style of Dr. Seuss, I would need to make it very clear that the book was *not* a work by Dr. Seuss. 

Copyright allows control over making copies of a creative work.  It does not allow control over works that were "inspired" by a copyrighted piece.

An issue with current AI, is that it doesn't understand the limitations of copyright law, and can sometimes produce results that would typically be considered copyright infringement.  

It's going to take a while to sort out what rights various parties should have.   There is more than one reasonable way to resolve the legal issues.  It will be interesting to see how Congress and the courts resolve these issues.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.  It is merely my imperfect understanding of some of the issues.

AI can’t think and it can’t reason and because of that it knows no limitations today, however one day it will, but that day is decades away, but that does not mean you should get to scrape all of the copyrighted material since 1920 at your leisure but the protected class gets to do so.

People are allowed to scrape as much copyrighted material as they like.  Machines are simply better at it.

This is a common challenge with new technology.  In the past, certain activities were limited by the technology of the time.  Therefore, certain activities could not rise to the level where they were a common issue.  As technology improves, so do various abilities.

For instance, 50 years ago we didn't really need laws governing the ability for private companies to track people.  If they wanted to track someone, they hired a private investigator, and he would follow the person of interest.  If you wanted to track 50 people, you would need 50 private investigators.  The available technology limited the collection of tracking data.   If a company wanted to track someone, and sell that information, they could.  It just wasn't a common thing.

Today, the three major cellular companies maintain a real time database of where just about every adult is currently located.  They have to.  They need to know where you are so when someone calls you the signal only needs to go to the cell tower closest to you.  That data is extremely valuable.  Knowing where you are, and where you have been, makes it possible to make some very good guesses about your likes and dislikes.  That makes it possible to target you with ads, that are designed to appeal to your personal preferences, or feed off your personal fears.

Once it becomes trivial to track people, we need to think about whether and how to regulate tracking.

In the past, it wasn't possible to read a large percentage of what gets published.  It was even less possible to memorize every passage of every book you have ever read.   Now that computers are doing this, it's important that we consider whether we need new regulations and what should they be?

People are not allowed to scrape if scraping means reading something once or twice or thrice, then write a thesis/paper at a university, but later on become famous/prominent, see if you’ll be allowed to get away with copying/scraping (remembering it too well) it once again if you have all the knowledge before 1920 which is in the public domain shouldn’t that not be enough? And everything afterwards in the last 125 years, you pay for? How difficult is that? 

And the way the court systems work if you don’t raise a fuss now you will never get satisfaction similar to trade marks if you don’t keep on top of it, if you don’t try to enforce it, the court system say’s too bad.

Greedy, AI companies all of civilized (dawn of agriculture) human history 11,000 B.C. approximately until 1920 free and it still isn’t enough…. The kicker in this is Apple being sought out and sued, for scraping in the next five years despite this ruling.

You're misconstruing mfryd's point. He's not defending the notion that AI should be ungoverned or that content creators shouldn't be compensated (somehow). He's main thesis is that simple analogies and simple solutions won't work.

And your first example isn't factually correct. Experts (real experts) do exactly what you say they aren't "allowed to get away with". They read vociferously and are able to present that information coherently and effectively to people. For example, that's exactly what Neil deGrasse Tyson does. As far as I know, he's not a world-class researcher who has independently amassed a wealth of astronomical data thru observation. He's a guy that has read what a lot of scientists and other experts have written, and he is very successful presenting that information. If he drifted into the bounds of plagiarism, we would hear about it and he would be chastised appropriately. I'm sure there are scientists who are jealous of his fame, but no one disputes his right to say and write what he says based on what he "scraped" from various sources.

On the other hand, it feels very different when a computer does this, because it can do so at massive scale. So maybe, morally and/or legal, that's fine. Or maybe it's qualitatively different and should be treated different. It's complicated.

There are plenty of legal and regulatory changes that were sparked by something radically changing due to technology and industrialization. Why would we expect anything different here? 

MplsP said:

Too bad but not unexpected. The auto execs have been digging their heels in the sand for years. Look how long it took them to adopt CarPlay. I saw a demo of the Aston Martin implementation on YouTube and Apple doesn’t completely takes over the car’s systems, rather they provide an API that allows the systems to be displayed through CarPlay. Importantly, the API also allows the manufacturers to maintain some control and customize the displays so they’re not a ‘generic Apple’ display. Customers can also opt for ‘CarPlay Classic’ if they prefer. At least it sounds like the manufacturers are still allowing that.

That's exactly what I was about to say.

I hope more auto execs mull over the Aston Martin experience. Why should each car maker invest in their operating systems for user controls when a company like Apple can give them a much better system for their designers to build with? It's like a game designer who opts to use the Unity engine as opposed to coding from the ground up.

Anyway, here's the video:  The interview with the Aston Martin head of design starts around the 15:00 mark.

designguybrown said:

Meh. Seems emotional and sentimental. If you are placing your content on the web, you are practically posting it on the street for general view with absurd hopes of pennies trickling in on some desperate fancy rather than through proper business channels with an effective strategy of legally protecting and promoting yourself - childish. Most people who do such art that they may avoid other types of structured paid work - what do they expect when they treat their skill set as a hobby - likely not wanting to work for others on a structured gig - if that's even around much? What's even the issue here - not getting a piece of the trifling leavings of scrapers and edu-content pedlars? pedantic. Art needs to stop being a vague creation-vocation of the rando people and grow up. Successful society is based on complex businesses and legal structures requiring serious people acting seriously. Creativity is a real skill and needs focused training and  a hierarchy of knowledgeable people to propagate it through society. Sorry, but I have little symp for the dilettantes and dabblers hoping to otherwise avoid the soulless cubicle, construction site, and assembly line.

You realize, of course, that you posted this on a site that does exactly what you describe as a childish, desperate fancy, right?

I think most of us would agree that "Successful society is based on complex businesses and legal structures requiring serious people acting seriously." I might get that as a tattoo.

Now, when I read that I think of wise, thoughtful comments like mfryd has been posting here. AI raises complex business and legal questions and perhaps we need new legal models to ensure we end up with a successful society. Not sure how denigrating content creators as dilettantes and dabblers helps advance the conversation (although I do appreciate the alliteration).

9secondkox2 said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

9secondkox2 said:

AppleZulu said:

9secondkox2 said:

pianoman1962 said:

The guy is lying through his teeth... again. Well, no surprise there. He's not fit to run a boy scouts group, let alone a country.

Lying about what? Have you heard him speak about this at all? 

It's fascinating, if a bit sad, to watch you pivot right here in this thread from acknowledging that this is junk and 'not a good look' to trying really hard to pretend like Donald Trump has nothing to do with it. 

Of course he has everything to do with it. If he didn't, shouldn't we expect him to have already stepped up to a podium and declared that in order to protect the integrity of the Office of the President, that he must publicly insist that his sons cease and desist in this crass effort to profit from his presidency? Shouldn't he be saying, as President, he holds the public trust as sacrosanct, and he won't tolerate this or any future efforts to sully the presidency with tacky profiteering schemes? Of course he hasn't said any of that, because this was presented to him and endorsed by him before they went public with it. If he wasn't, he would have been blind-sided and publicly angry about it. 

Trump's silence on the matter is part of the problem, not the plausible deniability that you're trying to sell. 

I asked a simple objective question. The things some people try to attach to the issue simply have not presented themselves in reality. 

Best to stick with facts over conjecture. If it comes out thst this was “45/57” pulling the strings, so be it. But from all available info so far, there appears to be distance there. That’s simple fact. 

Yes, it looks like a lame offering. From a lame phone to a service of unknown quality to poor graphic design/web design, and cringeworthy “marketing,” to the whole thing just being an MVNO with a couple third party services attached to your phone bill, it’s just not compelling. And it is a bit cringeworthy. 

Is it wrong for the Trump family organization to offer this? Is it wrong to have the marketing loosely but obviously connected to the fact that their dad Donald J Trump is the 45th and 47th president? (The 47 Plan / $47.45, etc) Is it wrong to include “Mske America Great Again” on the phone wallpaper? Doubtful. Is it cringe and unappealing? Sure. I dont disagree. 

Why would the president need to be vocal about something he doesn’t have anything to do with? He might think it’s cool his kids are doing their own thing here. And? It’s not like Trump has the best aesthetic taste in the world. Sprinkling gold on everything isn’t aesthetically appealing, nor is his choice of architecture, hairstyle, spray tan, etc. but I’m sure he’s happy his kids have taken some initiative and no doubt is ok with it. Doesn’t mean he’s behind it or is wrong somehow for not getting vocal or involved against it in some other way. 

I get that this forum is predominantly hostile toward the president to say the least. And folks such as myself are in the minority here, even having moderators suggest putting such views on “ignore.” And it’s not like the president is perfect. There are plenty of things to disagree on. But nitpicking every little thing snd even nitpicking stuff that just isn’t there is too much. It becomes like the boy who cried wolf. After a while, it just becomes noise. 

But this issue is simply the man’s family doing their own thing snd banking on their dads popularity. Trump himself has not been proven to be involved, nor is there any evidence of such that I’ve seen. And I’ve been looking. If that changes, so be it. But let’s stick with the facts for now. 

You know what, you're right. There's no evidence that the phone covered in fake gold coloring with the initial of the President, running a service named after the President, focused on promoting an initiative of building in the US created by the President being made by the company the President still controls according to financial filings, has anything to do with the President.

We should all learn to reason this way. we'd all be much happier. He also isn't earning any money from crypto or bible sales and is personal friends with the Easter Bunny.

All that and still no evidence. If it comes out that tje president is pulling the strings on this venture, then you will have some fodder. But it doesn’t appear to be the case at the moment. An initial? *gasp!* the same initial that the guys kids have? Egad. 

Each of the other ventures have their own nuance. And they can each be discussed as well. However, The subject of this thread is the new Trump Mobile service. And at least up to now, there is no evidence DJT is running this. Or even involved at all. 

From the Trump Mobile site:

TRUMPSM and all associated designs are trademarks of DTTM Operations LLC. TrumpSM Mobile, its products and services are not designed, developed, manufactured, distributed or sold by The TrumpSM Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals. T1SM Mobile LLC uses the TRUMPSM name and trademark pursuant to the terms of a limited license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms. 

At minimum, Trump Mobile uses the Trump name under license from The Trump Organization. If DJT wants to disassociate himself from this dumpster file, he could easily tell his kids to revoke that license. Failure to do so can be inferred as support.

Rogue01 said:

Developers are not really interested in making apps for a platform that no one is interested in buying or using.  AR/VR has never been popular or something that consumers feel they need.  3DTV bombed because people did not even want to wear glasses, let alone big heavy goggles.  And consumers are not spending $3500 on a product they don't 'need' in their life.  Apple did not solve any problems with this device.  They are better off just killing it and putting the resources to improving iOS, macOS and iPadOS, the systems that consumers actually use and upgrade over time.

Even watchOS is dead and developers have pretty much abandoned that platform.  The last 5 versions of the watch were uneventful with very little to offer.  I don't even wear my Watch 5 anymore.  Just sits on a charger.  Has some cool fitness apps, but much easier to just look at my phone.

Some may not agree, but that is the reality of it.  Any time I have been at an Apple Store, people are looking at phones and Macs.  They don't even look at the Vision Pro because it is so stupidly expensive, and they don't have a need for it.

LOL

Your Visio Pro take is fine. Your Apple Watch take is bizarre. Apple Watch is ubiquitous in the wild. The fact you don't wear your 6-year old AW is irrelevant. I do wonder why you keep charging it however. Give it away or sell it.