- Getty has brought a lawsuit against Stability AI — they claim it misused photos to train AI. Misused?
- New York Times sues OpenAI
Before we speak of AI, and as this issue is being fought from both sides of the pond, let’s take a big step back, and talk about dump apes - flipping coins. Oops, I flipped that, dumb apes.
Scam… er, I mean psychics, often prevail in defamation cases due to a legal emphasis on protecting livelihoods [in the UK]. This nuance significantly alters outcomes, enabling ‘psychics’ to predict success. Doh! No, it doesn’t. But they do win from a flip of the coin, and winning the case often causes people to falsely believe that bullshit/bullocks imply they are real psychics, which is sad, and dumb. Dumb apes.
Hey! Don’t be too Random
In America (and most places) a slot machine has a simple normal run-of-the-mill Random Number Generator (RNG), doing its best to just flip a coin, as science should. Called Fruities In the UK, they add a 2nd layer of logic to prevent the core logic from doing its job. They come along and tweak the output to be less, random. If you ever want a deep dive into insanity, search on this one. Dumb apes.
Copycat
Like Passports, Copyright was invented in the UK. But it is the US that has defined it. The rules are subtle and different, especially about Fair Use vs. Fair Dealings. Consider just how Fair Use in the US allows one to present the News, criticise or critique something, or the most important thing in the world to me, to parody something. I will die on my sword a horrific bloody death to ensure we can all laugh our arses off as I die on my sword (SNL might not exist if not for US fair use laws), and now for something completely different… Dumb apes.
Said another way, the UK is fuck’n nuts! Sorry, sorry, bloo’ee nuts! (added a South East London accent in there for those following along, yeah, when I write, the voices in my head have all sorts of accents, one day you have to hear me read my own posts in all those voices)
Now, we can return to the topic of AI. Why should AI be shackled where humans are not?
We apes are allowed to walk around, look at billboards, ads, and the news, read books and magazines, review art in art galleries, watch street performers, etc. From this, we are inspired…
Yo Madonna, love ya Voguing!’
[said in a thick Queer Queens Patois]
…to present similar manifestations, welcome to what is called fashion — which is afforded almost no copyright protection, hence Brand is everything.
And we apes often (very often) cross this imaginary line of ‘copyright’ constantly.
Hey! You start your fire for survival just like I start my fire for survival. You saw how I did it, so now, I shall pick up this rock and bash you in the head.
But I digress…
The courts are never free of a case involving copyright, at every level. Just music alone, consider that moment you realise the Alphabet ABC song is the same as Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, or that the Happy Birthday song is actually copyrighted, although stolen itself from a Victorian song ‘Good Morning to All’ — good moment to conjure everything Disney has ever done, both taking from (er, inspired by?) and redefining Copyright itself (the then Pres. Eisner got a condo in D.C. as I recall to live there while protecting and changing the law for the Mouse).
So are people just angry about AI taking their jobs (and they should be, but not for this reason)? Which is itself indistinguishable from racism/bigotry of tech (#Luddite).
The simple question I put to everyone is, if Copyright itself is to be fair, it should be possible to reduce it to a set of rules, right?
cut to…
I know it when I see it
If it can have a set of rules, that AI itself should be able to confirm if the resulting products created — violate those rules.
Please share with me, as the reader, what these regulations entail (exactly) and the rationale behind imposing separate laws that constrain AI — segregating them from all dumb apes.
