Humans are not computers. Humans are not a service. In the end, all laws are made up rules and can absolutely be written to have different outcomes and restrictions based on if a human is doing something or if a program is doing it.
Humans are not computers. Humans are not a service. In the end, all laws are made up rules and can absolutely be written to have different outcomes and restrictions based on if a human is doing something or if a program is doing it.
Real question, if an LLM shouldn't be able to remix someone's written work, why should a robot be able to build a chair that kinda looks like a chair a carpenter built that one time? The carpenter was a human, and humans are not a service.
Why this distinction only for intellectual work?
For the same reason that you can make a similar-looking chair, but you can’t distribute a fuzzy copy of Star Wars. The char isn’t a copyrighted work.
"The char isn’t a copyrighted work."
An Eames chair is, we just have a really high bar for what is copyrightable in the physical world, and it seems pointlessly discriminatory.
Uhuh so it seems that you weren't, in fact, asking a "Real question", but came here for an argument.
this copy of Star wars seems pretty fuzzy https://dev.to/kasuken/how-to-watch-star-wars-in-your-termin...
there are also fan remakes of movies like this one. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3528906/
I'm not a lawyer but this does seem like they're wholesale copying ideas.
Furniture designs can be covered by varying intellectual property laws.
Honestly? I don’t know, I don’t have a whole coherent ethos about LLMs.
But I do know someone definitely paid for the textbooks I used when learning in school.
I suspect chairs have been public domain since the advent of man.