Do you not think it a bit too hyperbolic to throw scare quotes around experts and imply the only people who can have opinions on systemic risk are software engineers? I don't think it is unreasonable for people who…
Assuming you're referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, Thaler claimed to the copyright office that the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". So the question of "if you claim…
I think the suggestion is that the government use of that public data could be such as to create a chilling effect. That is, the upload and interaction of the user with the private company is almost irrelevant: it is…
AIUI Because if you have a zero data retention agreement you are necessarily not in the class of records at issue (since enterprise customers records are not affected, again AIUI per platinffs' original motion which…
I don't think it is accurate to say that the data becomes the government's or they have to act as an informant (I think that implies a bit more of an active requirement than responding to a subpoena), but I agree with…
Do you think the 4th amendment enjoins courts from requiring the preservation of records as part of discovery? The court is just requiring OpenAI to maintain records it already maintains and segregate them. Even if one…
Well, presumably the claim would be that a factor in their not having taxable income was the fact that they didn't have to amortize their development cost.
> Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github and lose their shit. What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
There already was a verdict (for the Times) but it was thrown out on appeal. This is a re-do. ETA: I looked up the docket [0] and in fact, this was the second appeal (See ECF 64). There was also an appeal on a prior…
Probably https://free.law/ ETA: which is of course mentioned on the thread root. But RECAP users would be paying, in that case.
I would think it makes some amount of sense if you think they're vegetarian for some moral reason and you think you could court them to become customers.
Why do you think that? This obviously does not preclude copyright interests from existing in works which were generated using "AI" as a blanket rule; rather, this is about the fact that the applicant persistent in…
What comparison do you think the parent comment is making? They just vaguely gesture at corporate personhood and say "what about that?" My best reading of it is "can 'they' say that corporations can author works?" and…
Yes, I agree. I don't think I am saying anything inconsistent with that.
Code is not purely functional. If it is, it is not copyrightable (at least in the US; probably true elsewhere but I am less sure) [0]. I would not expect most prompts to be purely functional. [0]:…
> What I can guarantee, is that the prompt itself would be copyright-able. That's non-obvious to me. Even if the prompt is extremely long and precise, if it is somehow purely functional, it seems possible for it to not…
In what way do you think corporate personhood is relevant here?
I don't think it takes that much imagination here. Not sure what good the first step is actually doing you. Might as well just AI-generate your racketeering demand letters without doing that part.
As a matter of law? Sure it does. Thaler said the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". He's been trying to walk that back for the last couple of years though. See…
> Copyright only protects the actual text. LLMs have weights, not exact copies. Following this logic a lossily compressed image is completely unprotected by copyright. > In any case, saying "if I put in some input and…
I think this is discussed at length in part II.D (starts at the bottom of 17). I would write more but I have spent too long already on this thread :) I would be a bit careful about trying to liken motivation for…
> Right, I'm saying they based it on on the "text" of the law, instead of the motivation. Sure, although they do discuss TikTok's challenge to the motivation ("Petitioners further argue that the Act is underinclusive as…
> It absolutely does. (It’s in the opinion.) The opinion actually assumes without deciding that First Amendment scrutiny applies, so I don't think it "absolutely" does. (But yes, it probably does and Sotomayor and…
The quote you posted is about if the exclusion of platforms "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews" means the law is content-based, but the…
Do you not think it a bit too hyperbolic to throw scare quotes around experts and imply the only people who can have opinions on systemic risk are software engineers? I don't think it is unreasonable for people who…
Assuming you're referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, Thaler claimed to the copyright office that the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". So the question of "if you claim…
I think the suggestion is that the government use of that public data could be such as to create a chilling effect. That is, the upload and interaction of the user with the private company is almost irrelevant: it is…
AIUI Because if you have a zero data retention agreement you are necessarily not in the class of records at issue (since enterprise customers records are not affected, again AIUI per platinffs' original motion which…
I don't think it is accurate to say that the data becomes the government's or they have to act as an informant (I think that implies a bit more of an active requirement than responding to a subpoena), but I agree with…
Do you think the 4th amendment enjoins courts from requiring the preservation of records as part of discovery? The court is just requiring OpenAI to maintain records it already maintains and segregate them. Even if one…
Well, presumably the claim would be that a factor in their not having taxable income was the fact that they didn't have to amortize their development cost.
> Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github and lose their shit. What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
There already was a verdict (for the Times) but it was thrown out on appeal. This is a re-do. ETA: I looked up the docket [0] and in fact, this was the second appeal (See ECF 64). There was also an appeal on a prior…
Probably https://free.law/ ETA: which is of course mentioned on the thread root. But RECAP users would be paying, in that case.
I would think it makes some amount of sense if you think they're vegetarian for some moral reason and you think you could court them to become customers.
Why do you think that? This obviously does not preclude copyright interests from existing in works which were generated using "AI" as a blanket rule; rather, this is about the fact that the applicant persistent in…
What comparison do you think the parent comment is making? They just vaguely gesture at corporate personhood and say "what about that?" My best reading of it is "can 'they' say that corporations can author works?" and…
Yes, I agree. I don't think I am saying anything inconsistent with that.
Code is not purely functional. If it is, it is not copyrightable (at least in the US; probably true elsewhere but I am less sure) [0]. I would not expect most prompts to be purely functional. [0]:…
> What I can guarantee, is that the prompt itself would be copyright-able. That's non-obvious to me. Even if the prompt is extremely long and precise, if it is somehow purely functional, it seems possible for it to not…
In what way do you think corporate personhood is relevant here?
I don't think it takes that much imagination here. Not sure what good the first step is actually doing you. Might as well just AI-generate your racketeering demand letters without doing that part.
As a matter of law? Sure it does. Thaler said the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". He's been trying to walk that back for the last couple of years though. See…
> Copyright only protects the actual text. LLMs have weights, not exact copies. Following this logic a lossily compressed image is completely unprotected by copyright. > In any case, saying "if I put in some input and…
I think this is discussed at length in part II.D (starts at the bottom of 17). I would write more but I have spent too long already on this thread :) I would be a bit careful about trying to liken motivation for…
> Right, I'm saying they based it on on the "text" of the law, instead of the motivation. Sure, although they do discuss TikTok's challenge to the motivation ("Petitioners further argue that the Act is underinclusive as…
> It absolutely does. (It’s in the opinion.) The opinion actually assumes without deciding that First Amendment scrutiny applies, so I don't think it "absolutely" does. (But yes, it probably does and Sotomayor and…
The quote you posted is about if the exclusion of platforms "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews" means the law is content-based, but the…