FaceDeer

Interestingly, I'm not seeing your quoted content when I look at this article. I see a three-paragraph-long article that says in a nutshell "people don't visit source sites as much now that AI summarizes the contents for them." (Ironic that I am manually summarizing it like that).

Perhaps it's some kind of paywall blocking me from seeing the rest? I don't see any popup telling me that, but I've got a lot of adblockers that might be stopping that from appearing. I'm not going to disable adblockers just to see whether this is paywalled, given how incredibly intrusive and annoying ads are these days.

Gee, I wonder why people prefer AI.

It's sort of a monkey's paw luck, though. The whole reason MAGA is so rabidly obsessed with getting this guy is because he has the media coverage. They made a big dramatic show out of declaring that he'll "never walk free on American soil again" and now find themselves scrambling to do anything they can to prevent that, regardless of reason.

Angela Merkel had to tell Trump this 11 times in one meeting during his first term. I guess he forgot since then.

Any reason to say that other than that it didn't give the result you wanted?

The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak.

That's a work of fiction. You might as well suggest dropping lightsabres on the bunker.

Why is this any different?

The judgment in the article I linked goes into detail, but essentially you're asking for the law to let you control something that has never been yours to control before.

If an AI generates something that does indeed provably contain a sample of a piece of music in a song you recorded, then yes, that output may be something you can challenge as a copyright violation. But if the AI's output doesn't contain an identifiable sample, then no, it's not yours. That's how copyright works, it's about the actual tangible expression.

It's not about the analysis if copyrighted works, which is what AI training is doing. That's never been something that copyright holders have any say over.

Funny, for me it was quite heartening. If it had gone the other way it could have been disastrous for freedom of information and culture and learning in general. This decision prevents big publishers like Disney from claiming shares of the pie - their published works are free for anyone with access to them to train on, they don't need special permission or to pay special licensing fees.

There was actually just a big ruling on a case involving this, here's an article about it. In short: a judge granted summary judgment that establishes that training an AI does not require a license or any other permission from the copyright holder, that training an AI is not a copyright violation and they don't hold any rights over the resulting model.

I'm assuming this case is why we have this news about Anthropic scanning books coming out right now too.

So, people were angry at them for pirating books. Now we find they actually purchased books to scan, and people are angry about that too.

What material would that be? Corrosives have limits, they can't just keep dissolving stuff forever.

And what would "total failure" look like? It's a mountain, it's not going to just collapse into goo.

And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can't simply try again.