We can discuss technicalities all day long, but that's so beside the point. Thread OP claimed that creating an LLM based on a copyrighted work is okay, because humans are influenced by other works as well. But a human can't crank out hundreds of Stephen King-like chapters per hour. Or hundreds of Dali-like paintings pretty minute.
If King or Dali had given permission for their works to be used in this way, it might have been a different story, but as it is, AI models are being trained on (and profit from) huge amounts of data that they did not have permission for.
Edit: nevermind, I think trying to discuss AI ethics with you is pointless. Have a nice weekend!
But you can easily fit all of Kings work in a 4gb model. Just because it isn't done in the most popular models, doesn't make it ethical to do it in the first place.
In my opinion, you should only be able to use a work to train an AI model, if the work is public domain or if you have explicit permission to do so by the license holder. Especially if you then use that model for profit or charge orders to use ie.
By default an AI will draw from its entire memory, and so will have lots of different influences. But by tuning your prompt (or restricting your input dataset) you can make it so specific, it's basically creating near perfect clones. And contrary to a human, it can then produce similar works hundreds of times per minute.
But even that is beside the point. Those works were sold under the presumption that people will read them. Not to ingest them into a LLM or text-to-image model. And now, companies like openai and others profit from the models they trained without permission from the original author. That's just wrong.
Edit: As several people mentioned, I exaggerated when I said near perfect clones, I'll admit that. But just because it doesn't violate copyright (IANAL), doesn't mean it's ethical to take a work and make derivatives of it on an unlimited scale.
That would still create a fragmented comment situation. Ideally, the server should be aware of "sister communities", so it could merge the comment threads, or at least tell the client to do so. But that has all kinds of moderation implications, as noted elsewhere.
In the end you're either doing federation on community level (which would require another level of federation administration - you can't just merge like-named communities from Any instance), or you'd have to convince 1 community to go read only and refer to the "defacto" community.
The first one has a lot of technical hurdles (servers and clients would have to adapt, and then community admins would be responsible for deciding who to federate their communities with). The second depends on mods giving up their community, which is unlikely and undesirable in case of defederation. Or option 3: keep the status quo, of course.
First off all, the components are selected for the Linux compatibility, so it's guaranteed to work. But they also provide some tools to make sure you use the preferred drivers, a control center tool for customising fan speeds, etc. All of which are open source.
They even provide the windows drivers for all configs for when you want to dusk boot (and those are even fairly up to date).
I don't think an AI or indeed most writers could mimic anything like the frantic ad-libbing he was known and loved for.
I'm not convinced. If you trained a model on all of his performances and scripts, I think it could generate something that could fool most people. Not everything it generates would be terrific, but even if only 1% is good, you just cut out all the rest.
These are the same promises the emergence of the blockchain gave us. We're now nearly a decade later, and the most useful application has been get-rich-quick schemes. Yet, all these listed applications are still not in use, and/or better than their non-blockchain counterparts.