Just a guy jumping from a hot mess into more prosperous waters.
As someone who has spent their life translating for family this isn’t surprising. Nor is it any easier when they bring me poorly translated documents and hope I decipher machine diarrhea. The tech is still years behind being real world ready, especially with anything above 6th grade grammar and nuanced word choice that depends on context and sometimes dialect. But free is free so 🤷
The missing factor is intent. Make a random image, that’s that. But if proven that the accused made efforts to recreate a victim’s likeness that shows intent. Any explicit work by the accused with the likeness would be used to prove the charges.
Reading these comments has shown me that most users don’t realize that not all working artists are using 1099s and filing as an individual. Once you have stable income and assets (e.g. equipment) there are tax and legal benefits to incorporating your business. Removing copyright protections for large corporations will impact successful small artists who just wanted a few tax breaks.
That’s fine, but not the primary issue.
At some point these companies will need to get licenses for any copyrighted work that was part of the training data, or start over with public domain works only. The art may be data, but that data has legal owners whose rights grant control over it’s use.
Another way to think about is proprietary code. You can see it and learn from it at your leisure. But to use it commercially requires a license, one that clearly defines what can and cannot be done with it, as well as fair compensation.
The short version is that it’s a licensing issue. All art is free to view, but the moment you try to integrate it into a commercial product/service you’ll owe someone money unless the artist is given fair compensation in some other form.
For example, artists agree to provide a usage license to popular art sites to host and display their works. That license does not transfer to the guy/company scraping portfolios to fuel their AI. Unfortunately, as we can see from the article, AI may be able to generate but it still lacks imagination and inspiration; traits fundamental to creating truly derivative works. When money exchanges hands that denies the artist compensation because the work was never licensed and they are excluded from their portion of the sale.
Another example: I am a photographer uploading my images to a stock image site. As part of ToS I agree to provide a license to host, display, and relicense to buyers on my behalf. The stock site now offers an AI that create new images based on its portfolio. The catch is that all attributed works result in a monetary payment to the artists. When buyers license AI generated works based on my images I get a percentage of the sale. The stock site is legally compliant because it has a license to use my work, and I receive fair compensation when the images are used. The cycle is complete.
It gets trickier in practice, but licensing and compensation is the crux of the matter.
I’m convinced the AI had the hand on a loop. It’s like watching someone’s first presentation in speech and debate class. It will look better eventually, but I doubt it’ll figure out the subtle emphasis great body language adds to speech.
Found an earlier article by El Observador before the legislation passed. Under Uruguay’s old laws Spotify, YouTube, an other streaming platforms paid little to nothing in artist royalties. With the new legislation artists will now see fair compensation.
The Guardian does a better job explaining Spotify’s problem: do the royalties come from rights holders (I am assuming they’re referring to record labels) or the streaming services? The later case they believe will cause them to pay double what they’re paying for streaming rights.
The issue just needs to back to Uruguay’s government to sort out who pays the artist royalties, or if both labels and streaming share a proportionate responsibility.
Gayle McLaughlin used to be the Green Party’s best example of what they could do at the local level, until she left in 2016 to vote for Bernie Sanders. I’m fairly certain she is the outlier.
The short version is that an actor’s AI double, and an AI amalgam of several actors, will be treated as a proxy for the actor(s). The actor can agree or decline the use of their AI proxy based on the scene, and are compensated for use of their likeness as if they had gone in person. It’s a pretty big win for actors considering studios wanted unlimited usage for a one time payment.
It’s likely the crew was using fresnel lights which are bright and very hot. You can easily burn yourself or set fire to delicate objects after prolonged use. Not impossible to imagine a crew member moving the lights, leaving them on and highly focused to imitate a distant light source; like a magnifying glass under the sun.
These are Eldritch servers. It’s not bleeding, it’s eating. The cables are how it catches prey.
Especially when they’re non food/textile producing ones that are literally used to just get drunk.
Just for clarity agave can be used as a sweetener, edible, it’s fibers can be used in textiles, can be made into soap, and has some medicinal uses. Once the market saturates with spirits it’s other uses will likely be marketed to fully utilize crop yields.
I feel that this can be addressed at application step. Any date of birth proven to be under 18 cannot apply without an in person interview. This protects minors from taking on debt without fully understanding the implications, and puts responsibility on the lender for providing credit to a minor. If credit is provided and defaults the debt should be the lender’s problem for taking such a huge risk.
Alternatively, the same premise with the exception that an adult is required as a cosigner. If the account defaults the burden is shifted to the adult as they have the cognizance to understand and take responsibility.
I wouldn’t outright ban giving accounts to minors. My parents opened a savings account in my name and kept it in good standing. This gave me a big credit boost that my peers never had. But I realize I am an exception, and the problem others face is very real.
Some of the Ulefone Armor phones have IR cameras. Unless you love construction it’s probably not the best purchase for the average person.
It is pretty idiotic imo that the music industry can ban people from showing song lyrics. Iirc you have to get a license to list song lyrics since they’re technically a copyrighted work.
Here’s the thing, if its copyright-able you can get a license for it. Amazon already has licenses to sell and stream music, that part of the usage agreement was already negotiated. A simple analogy would be you want to buy three games from a store, you pay for two but leave with three. Obviously the store is not happy with you. You’ve shown you’re legally compliant with two games, yet took the third without paying.
But there are some interesting caveats in the article:
The lawsuit, which is the first from a music publisher against an AI company over the use of lyrics, was filed in the wake of the Authors Guild — representing a host of prominent fiction authors including George R.R. Martin, Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham — suing OpenAI last month.
This makes sense since lyrics aren’t all that different from poetry, and whole albums could be considered a collection of short works. So loosening the copyright protections may give AI companies more data to work with, but it would end up hurting authors (lyricists, screen writers, novelists) and related fields. A real world fallout would be SAG-AFTRA strikers losing royalties and bargaining power, while empowering and enriching the big studios’ own AI models.
I wanted to see if Anthropic, the company being sued, has the money on hand to pay for licenses, to square up legally if you will. Well, doesn’t look like Anthropic is hurting for cash as of 3rd quarter 2023.
Amazon said on Monday that it’s investing up to $4 billion into the artificial intelligence company Anthropic in exchange for partial ownership and Anthropic’s greater use of Amazon Web Services (AWS), the e-commerce giant’s cloud computing platform.
Even if the licenses were 10 million in total, that would leave 3,990,000,000 on hand; or .0025% of what Amazon offered. I don’t see how they’d walk away without settling for the licensing fees and legal expenses. They’re financially secure and partially owned by a company that is legally compliant with its own handling of intellectual property.
I don’t blame you. Even in a professional setting tagging is mind numbing and tedious. The only difference is without tagging you might miss an image that can be licensed and the business opportunity that needed it.
They are wonderful people. Especially when they tear off the crust so I can eat it.
Given your experience what do you believe would be a good starting point towards caring for these individuals? What issues and solutions do you see that aren’t addressed? I understand I’m an outsider looking in on this issue, avoiding the mentality ill homeless like many others. But if my vote can go towards a better solutions I’d like to learn about them.
My guess is search for toddlers, whose parents handed them a phone to keep busy while they rest or do something else. They’re the only demographic that does not know how to spell, or knows too few words to search effectively. But considering the American education system this could also apply to students who are illiterate despite completing the grade every year.