donuts @ donuts @kbin.social

Posts

4

Comments

673

Joined

2 yr. ago

Using copyrighted material for research is fair use. Any model produced by such research is not itself a derivative work of the training material.

You're conflating AI research and the AI business. Training an AI is not "research" in a general sense, especially in the context of an AI that can be used to create assets for commercial applications.

All I want to know is if they are going to pillage people's private data and steal their creative IP or not.

Ethical AI starts and ends with open, transparent, legitimate and ethically sourced training data sets.

To be fair, Biden is 10 years "younger" than Feinstein.

I use a project called MiSTer for most of my retro needs these days, but there are definitely a bunch of other upscalers and things that can create similar effects.

Generally I find the quality of CRT emulation effects is much better, more accurate and more subtle than they used to be.

Some people swear by real CRTs of course, but getting a good picture out of a good CRT is usually an expensive (or at least time sinking) endeavor. It usually involves RGB modding consoles, or at least getting something like S-Video out. Many of us grew up with composite video, but it's pretty gnarly when you go back to it.

I feel a little bit underwhelmed about Raspberry Pi 5 compared to the Orange Pi 4.

Would it have killed them to throw an nvme m.2 connector on the underside?

These days I'd much rather pay 8-bit games on a 65inch 4k tv via HDMI with shadow mask and (light) scanline emulation filters, than over composite video to a small CRT. To reach their own though.

I'll have you know that Tom Petty's middle name was Earl good sir!

Good luck, have fun, and tell ChatGPT I said "hello".

It means that writers will be back to negotiate (possibly for significantly better terms) in 2026 should AI become a big money maker. By then it'll have been too late and AI will have killed the industry.

Nobody wants to watch AI generated movies or listen to AI generated music.

And yet it's still better than a system where you don't have to tell prospective candidates anything at all. I'd much rather have the knowledge that they want to hire me towards the low end of their own advertised range than have no information at all.

Man, everything around AI is just cynical and gross.

Factionalism. They truly won't stop at anything to be a team player for their party, even if their party is being run by a guy who doesn't value American institutions and tried to overthrow democracy to stay in power. They are a straight up cult, and regular, decent Americans better get ready to fight back in 2024, or shit is about to get real, real bad.

Anything... for a price.

Literally anything happening:

Cultist: I like my cult even more now!

Not really, it's just kind of a weird name for the collection based on the fact that Apollo plays a relatively big role in the story of these three games.

This is good news for my wallet I guess, although it makes me wonder what's up with that "Sephiroth" APU that showed up in the Linux Kernel. I'm so happy with my current Steam Deck that I don't really need another iteration on it right away anyway.

What they should really do is pay musicians more.

Funny, but I don't think there's a very strong argument that training AI is fair use, especially when you consider how it intersects with the standard four factors that generally determine whether a use of copyrighted work is fair or not.

Specifically stuff like:

courts tend to give greater protection to creative works; consequently, fair use applies more broadly to nonfiction, rather than fiction. Courts are usually more protective of art, music, poetry, feature films, and other creative works than they might be of nonfiction works.

Courts have ruled that even uses of small amounts may be excessive if they take the “heart of the work.” ... Photographs and artwork often generate controversies, because a user usually needs the full image, or the full “amount,” and this may not be a fair use.

(Keep in mind that many popular AI models have been trained on vast amounts of entire artworks, large sections of text, etc.)

Effect on the market is perhaps more complicated than the other three factors. Fundamentally, this factor means that if you could have realistically purchased or licensed the copyrighted work, that fact weighs against a finding of fair use. To evaluate this factor, you may need to make a simple investigation of the market to determine if the work is reasonably available for purchase or licensing. A work may be reasonably available if you are using a large portion of a book that is for sale at a typical market price. “Effect” is also closely linked to “purpose.” If your purpose is research or scholarship, market effect may be difficult to prove. If your purpose is commercial, then adverse market effect may be easier to prove.

To me, this factor is by far the strongest argument against AI being considered fair use.

The fact is that today's generative AI is being widely used for commercial purposes and stands to have a dramatic effect on the market for the same types of work that they are using to train their data models--work that they could realistically have been licensing, and probably should be.

Ask any artist, writer, musician, or other creator whether they think it's "fair" to use their work to generate commercial products without any form of credit, consent or compensation, and the vast majority will tell you it isn't. I'm curious what "strong argument" that AI training is fair use is, because I'm just not seeing it.

I'm a programmer and I've played a couple of the pokemon games, and I'm still iffy on a few of them.