[goertzen]

Are you a real person ? Obviously there is more to it than that. Just because you’ve seen Mickey Mouse and can draw you should get to sell anything you can make with his likeness ? Or record any song you’ve heard ?

Obviously there is some gray area in the training conversation but let’s not pretend that these content owner arguments are baseless just to push progress at all costs ahead.

His point stands.

[CrimsonRain]

If I draw mickey image (using artificial intelligence or my intelligence; doesn't matter) and sell it, I'm violating copyright laws.

If I draw shitty mouse and sell it, I can. Again, doesn't matter if I use ai or not.

[rvnx]

I get his point, intellectual "property" boundaries could be limited to public or common benefit (I guess to extend the current interpretation of "fair use").

If we strictly interpret intellectual property, we couldn't have platforms such as Google Search (and some people actually think like this, like News or Images websites).

For now, I guess the main priority could be to fight patents, and software patents in particular. This system is completely obsolete and prevent innovation.

Imagine if Google patented the LLMs and decided to do nothing with them, or if OpenAI said "ok nobody can create LLMs based on Transformers except us".

Even more when it goes around medicine.

Today they patent the blood oxygen sensor, tomorrow it will be the glucose sensor in the Apple Watch.