By the same 'transformative' standards that allow satire, reaction and commentary videos to exist. And those take 100% from the source and add context, whereas good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source.
In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on *your observation* of someone else's work is absurd. No one pays Newton's descendants for making lifts or hosting bungee jump sport activities.
> good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source.
So would the model work if it only trained on the top 10% of pixels in every image? Or do they in fact need the entire image before they begin processing it, and therefore use the entire image?
> In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on your observation of someone else's work is absurd.
I agree that's absurd. But training a model is no more "observing images" than an F1 car is "walking" down a race track. Just because a race car uses kinetic energy, gravity, and friction to propel itself, the same way a human does, doesn't mean it's doing the same thing as a human. That comparison you're making is the real absurdity.
> So would the model work if it only trained on the top 10% of pixels in every image? Or do they in fact need the entire image before they begin processing it, and therefore use the entire image?
The model works by training on what features humans can make sense out of the image they're presented with, if the image and the observations of the image's feature were clear/observable enough. Then the generation makes use of those observations. I'm just using 10% as an arbitrary number to describe proportions. If the generation were 100% of the observations from the same image, the model would be overfitting, and many would have deemed it to have produced a copy.
> Just because a race car uses kinetic energy, gravity, and friction to propel itself, the same way a human does, doesn't mean it's doing the same thing as a human.
WTF does this even mean? A race car uses concepts from Newton, just as how a human uses gravity to train it's muscles to move be it knowingly or unknowingly. But you don't see them (car makers/humans) paying rent to Newton after he discovered gravity. Come on!
Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word?
Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's not allowed, and yet I have "transformed" the work in the same way that an LLM does.
If I buy a book entitled "How to make a table" and then make a table, the author does not own the table I made.
If I buy a book and use it to prop up a table, the author likewise does not own the table, or any works I undertake on that table.
If I buy a book and rip out the pages to make a collage, the US is the only legal jurisdiction where I run even slight risk of civil penalties.
An LLM is downstream of a book. Using a book to make an LLM does not confer any rights or privilges towards the LLM on the original author, just as using a hammer or nails dont permit the hammer or nail manufacturers any royalties on what I make, even if I build a hammer making machine with them. Theres no right to the works of people who build on your work without reproducing your work, at least outside of strict copyleft.
Its like demanding a cut from people who learned how to use photoshop by watching your photoshop tutorial youtube videos.
This is why the most successful cases against LLMs have been on the "Did they purchase the book" side of the fence, and not on the "What did they do with it" outside of the one case, where the legal company tried to use the LLM to 1:1 reproduce the content they had a limited license to, but thats obviously a no go and they should have known better.
> Is it transformative if I take all the pages in Hanya Yanagiharas A Little Life and use a thesaurus to change every second word?
If you meant it literally.. I'd think that such a version would be a sort of parody. It'd be up to lawyers doing their cross-examinations to prove the work was intended for such a purpose though..
> Or a more realistic scenario: what if I translate it to Spanish without license from the author? That's not allowed, and yet I have "transformed" the work in the same way that an LLM does.
Probably a lawyer would answer this better than me, but the 'content' is the same and would violate copyright. There's also other factors, like if it was translated/distributed for free.
Besides that I regard that LLMs to hold mathematical observations in contrast to a translated work. So long as the user ensures the output isn't close to what's already available imo it fits the transformative criteria.
You cannot claim that a formulaic thesaurusing of a text is parody, not unless the process is related to the message of the original text itself. Even then, that's a dubious claim. Especially if it was done automatically.
I can just as well say that a translated work contains "linguistic observations". In fact a translator has to do a lot of transformative work in order to translate a text.
An LLM just takes a set of texts, looks at n-gram distributions, and generates similar text. It is quite literally a fuzzy way of copying. There aren't any mathematical observations in the output. Any math (statistics) is done in the copying process.
> You cannot claim that a formulaic thesaurusing of a text is parody, not unless the process is related to the message of the original text itself. Even then, that's a dubious claim. Especially if it was done automatically.
Oh even if it's not a parody it would look transformed enough that a first-time reader would be getting a completely different interpretation of the story* compared to the original source. And that's all that matters.
> There aren't any mathematical observations in the output. Any math (statistics) is done in the copying process.
Wrong. Weights, which these models comprise of, are literally numbers to an extensive mathematical equation.
> It is quite literally a fuzzy way of copying.
And no one knows/there is no consensus on what a 'fuzzy way of copying' is. It is either copying or it is not. You could say that training an LLM is abstracting and integrating various text into it's weights, hereby transforming the source material and again transforming it a second time via integrating it into its weights.
Even if it involved copying that isnt immediately an issue. Its the distribution of a copy thats an issue. And if you look at the data side by side, you can see that while copying might be part of the process of creating an LLM, the LLM is not a copy of its source material.
> but players actually, really, 100% truthfully, no exaggeration, wanted classic WoW. not retail WoW with some classic-feeling bits. they wanted (basically) bug-for-bug classic.
You're speaking in the same manner of absolutes like most gamers tend to speak on discussion forums. It makes you unbelievable tbh.
Get this: The playerbase for retail is still larger than classic. And those who advocate world PVP have their servers eventually trend towards one faction. These are the just effects of the vocal minority. It doesn't mean the vocal minority are right for all instances. Just that the incentives lined up.
> I would be curious how can this be applied to a human? Should we also cite all the courses, articles that we have read on a topic when we write code?
Yea this is the kind of BS and counter-productiveness that irrational radicals try to push the crowd towards.
The idea that one owns your observations of their work and can collect rent on it is absurd.
The Right to Read is a great story on showing just how greedy and stupid people would get if we allow them. Society and culture is large scale theft. Imagine having to pay to learn about the idea of fire, or to use the alphabet. Simply put humanity would have never progressed much farther than animals. And yet, as the complexity of our ideas increase, suddenly many humans start thinking that owning ideas, many forever, is just great and will not have any negative ramifications.
The "slows progress" part has some bits of truth in it. This is coming from a from-young bilingual chinese/english speaker. Chinese is harder to learn, ceteris paribus, all other things being equal (especially regarding exposure).
English has 26 characters you can put in a buttoned keyboard. You recurse upon these letters to create new words & meanings. Chinese has what, a thousand? And you'd have to create a stroke system first if you don't have hanyu pinyin. Recursing Chinese characters has problems too, the chinese word for 'good', when split to it's sub-characters represent different meanings.
There were also some Chinese historians that specifically pointed out the chinese language was part of the cause of their worst slices of history despite the chinese having invented gunpowder and whatnot first. They also noted chinese was confined to the elite, who made the language even more complex (in contrast to other civilizations), during certain dynastic periods. Today, the chinese government are trying to simplify the language.
I get that there is pride in people's native languages, but they'll repeat the same mistakes if they don't recognize the weaknesses. It's a bitter pill to swallow.
IIRC this is a different case covered under fair/transformative use. The length of the clip matters, I think it was like <6seconds. There's a lot of videos/livestreams that use similar clips/voiceovers from other games.
Extremely easy to do with sound recording software or youtube mp3 downloaders. Takes a little imagination and makes programming less onerous in a deviate kind of way.
Showing my age here, but the original samples are available too, and in MP3 or WAV format - they're in the installation directory of the game (in case of StarCraft and W3, hidden in a weird pseudo-ZIP data file (used to call it "Virtual File System")). That's where we sourced them from to set them as system sounds, back when Windows versions were still in four digits.
If you're enough of a fan to want to use these voices, chances are you still have the original installation media (or original bootleg copy) somewhere around the house :).
This shifting of goalposts just to cater to linux just explains it all.
Comeon. If a customer bought a game that says it runs on linux, they should be able to play it on linux well, not just launch it and quit within 5 mins.
I get you have the ideology up in your head, but don't lie and embellish linux to this degree. The attitude just turns people off.
> If a customer bought a game that says it runs on linux, they should be able to play it on linux well
None of those games say they run on Linux.
- Starcraft 2 is available for windows/mac: https://starcraft2.blizzard.com/en-us/
- Anno 1800 is available for windows: https://store.steampowered.com/app/916440/Anno_1800/
- Hogwarts Legacy is available for windows: https://www.hogwartslegacy.com/en-us/pc-specs
The fact that you can play most games on Linux these days is due to the Wine developers, Valve, and CodeWeavers. But those efforts are completely unrelated to the developers of those three games. Buying Starcraft 2 is not, in any way, purchasing a Linux game or transferring money to anyone working on Linux support.
Every game I've purchased that actually says it runs on Linux, has worked beautifully on Linux (stellaris and factorio come to mind). Most windows games work beautifully on Linux too, but Blizzard isn't lifting any fingers to make it that way.
Yeah I hope I'm clear in that I'm not "against Linux" or "against people choosing to use Linux." I think Linux is awesome.
And I choose to use Windows for most of my personal computing, due to my gaming preferences, some needs (concussions + poor eyesight means things like scaling and brightness controls and refresh rate matter a lot to me), and my preference for DxO PhotoLab (which isn't Linux compatible.)
"Linux" is really a family of operating systems, so people need to be more specific. It might run perfectly out of the box on consumer/gamer focused operating systems like Bazzite or SteamOS while perhaps requiring more work on something like Red Hat or NixOS. Those different operating systems all have wildly different approaches to how the OS actually works despite generally being able to run a largely overlapping set of programs.
It's like saying something works on "laptop" without specifying whether it's a Thinkpad or a Chromebook or a Macbook.
I can't comment generally but I use NixOS and have had no issues playing games on Steam. The setup was laughably simple, just `programs.steam.enable = true;` and Steam handles compatibility so well that I buy games without thinking "will this run".
Actually there was one thing I couldn't do but this isn't unique to NixOS. I tried to install a GTAV mod that allows you to ride your smart bike trainer in game: GTBikeV. The mod can be installed, but the Bluetooth doesn't work. This is a WINE limitation.
Definitely not. Anyone growing up immersed in face-saving, high pressure, competition and possibly self-help influencers telling them how to achieve will exhibit these sorts of behaviors. Doesn't matter if you're white or black.
reply