

Is Miyazaki going to go in on his son again?
Is Miyazaki going to go in on his son again?
Fuck 'em. I don’t care. I hope no one uses them.
He’s not trying to get copyright for something he generated, he’s trying to have the court award copyright to his AI system “DABUS”, but copyright is for humans. Humans using Gen AI are eligible for copyright according to the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.
One of the provisions of fair use is the effects on the market. If your spambot is really shitting up the place, you may very well run afoul of the doctrine.
We’re saying the same thing here. It’s just your characterization of gen AI as a “tech-enabled copying device” isn’t accurate. You should read this which breaks down how all this works.
The fair use doctrine allows you to do just that. The alternative would be someone being able to publish a book and then shutting anyone else out of publishing, discussing, or building on their ideas without them getting a kick-back.
The funny part is most of the headlines want you to believe that using things without permission is somehow against copyright. When in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich. It’s sad watching people desperately trying to become the kind of system they’re against.
You’re moving the goalposts. Your original reply made no mention of co-authorship by a human, it was just one sweeping statement.
AI art is not protected by copyright, yes. That isn’t a “should” but rather how it actually works in nearly all countries but a few, certainly including the US.
But they do, explicitly:
Many popular AI platforms offer tools that encourage users to select, edit, and adapt AI- generated content in an iterative fashion. Midjourney, for instance, offers what it calls “Vary Region and Remix Prompting,” which allow users to select and regenerate regions of an image with a modified prompt. In the “Getting Started” section of its website, Midjourney provides the following images to demonstrate how these tools work.136
Unlike prompts alone, these tools can enable the user to control the selection and placement of individual creative elements. Whether such modifications rise to the minimum standard of originality required under Feist will depend on a case-by-case determination.138 In those cases where they do, the output should be copyrightable. Similarly, the inclusion of elements of AI-generated content in a larger human-authored work does not affect the copyrightability of the larger human-authored work as a whole.139 For example, a film that includes AI-generated special effects or background artwork is copyrightable, even if the AI effects and artwork separately are not.
This isn’t true. You should read the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.
I see it as a time capsule, capturing a moment in time in the medium’s evolution. I mean, check out the first ever AI-generated image that sold for $432,500 USD back in 2018:
I just want to mess with this one too. I had a hard time finding an abliterated one before that didn’t fail the Tiananmen Square question regularly.
Can’t wait to try a distillation. The full model is huge.
Fuck that guy.
I’ve heard of this happening when you generate datasets with ChatGPT to help train your model. OpenAI doesn’t want you doing this, making it against their terms of use, but there’s nothing they can do to stop people. You can generate some really good synthetic datasets from ChatGPT, and it’s perfectly legal to do.
Were you running it locally?
This tracks for SEGA.
Jesus fucking christ. Only four more years. I hope.
It helps to think of fights against monsters as a turn-based encounter. As long as you can dodge or the monster misses its attack, you should be able to land a hit. If you get hit or are too far away when the monster attacks, you probably won’t be able to land any meaningful offense or heal without getting punished for it.