I've expressed my opinions on this before which wasn't popular, but I think this case is going to get thrown out. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. has established the precedent that digitalization of copyrighted work is considered fair use, and finetuning an LLM even more so, because LLMs ultimately can be thought of as storing text data in a very, very lossy comprssion algorithm, and you can't exactly copyright JPEG noise.
And I don't think many of the writers or studio people actually tried to use ChatGPT to do creative writing, and so they think it magically outputs perfect scripts just by telling it to write a script: the reality is if you give it a simple prompt, it generates the blandest, most uninspired, badly paced textural garbage imaginable (LLMs are also really terrible at jokes), and you have to spend so much time prompt engineering just to get it to write something passable that it's often easier just to write it yourself.
So, the current law on it is fine I think, that pure AI generated contents are uncopyright-able, and NOBODY can make money off them without significant human contribution.
Read some Infinite Jest for more info on New Sincerity. It's a pretty difficult read, but it's rewarding. Funny, too.
I thought there is at least someone here who would connect the dots realize that the movie isn't mainly about feminism, it's about New Sincerity, and so are many of the comments and posts from here before. A bit disappointed.
Maybe I just like talking to Internet weirdos. I try to be nice here. Usually.
Jokes aren't as funny if you explain them. It's not the right time for the punchline yet.
Suppose there is a federated ActivityPub based Wiki network, how would that work? Fandom is so terrible for looking up actual info with irritating video ads, especially since after they brought out their competition from Curse.
See, I'm pulling the smartest move right now: AI can't take your job if you use AI to take your own job first.
Besides, I think Hollywood is pretty behind on tech overall. The current state of the art voice generator quality is still pretty bad, it'll be a very long time before it can replace actors in quality (if ever): if you train the AI voice on audiobooks, the generated voice is going to sound like someone narrating an audiobook, which really doesn't sound natural for dialogues at all.
I think then the key point isn't to ban generative transformer based AI: once the tech out of its box, you can't exactly put it back in again. (heh) The real question to ask is, who should own this technology so that it does good and help people in the world, instead of being used to take away people's livelihood?
This is a field where free software is unfortunately way worse than the paid options, and all the paid options are expensive.
If you are still a student, you can get SolidWorks for 100 USD a year, or Creo, Inventor, or Solid Edge for free. Completely non-commercial though.
If you are serious about this, get a SolidWorks permanent standard license (it's like 4 thousand USD?) or ZW3D permanent license which is just a bit cheaper, it's a relatively new Chinese company though, so a bit of jankiness is expected, but up to you if you want to try them out.
Well, as long as they get a fair deal, we'll be happy for them.
Do take anonymous sources with a grain of salt though. Keep your expectations low, anything can happen at this point.