this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
308 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59288 readers
6022 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Great; so this is all public domain knowledge since it was created with AI according to current law, right?
Personally I think all medicine should be public domain
Everything should.
Medicine. Internet. Waste disposal.
All utilities, phone, electricity, sewage, road and rail.
But actually looking at these, pretty much all protocols and standards are already open.
So you want to reduce innovation and cause creators to not get properly paid for their work? Great idea
lol "innovation" what is this 1925?
how innovative are the cars being produced because they look the same.
half those medicines are publicly funded
the Internet is publicly funded.
this belief of private sector innovation is not as true as they sell it to be.
This. Public institutions do a way better job and are more efficient at most things compared to private companies. It’s just a fact.
Private just makes more money and also you can do ridiculous shit like blow up your own rocket, destroying a landing pad in the process and ignore environmental and labor laws.
So you're just going to ignore the even worse creative theft that would happen under such laws towards artistic talents.
There'd be much less in the way of tv shows or animations.
why do you think that??
Yeah, so the actual law is that if you didn't do any work and just gave ChatGPT or Midjourney a prompt and it shat out a picture and then brag to the copyright office in your application that you didn't do diddly squat, the work effectively had no human authors. If, instead, you build a new machine learning model, tune it for your specific problem, analyze the results, and furthermore, break new ground understanding how it solved your problem, and then you write the paper, in fact, you have tons of ownership over the work.
The fact people can't tell the difference between the two and are actually upvoting you kind of says a lot about how little most people understand this stuff.
I'm just downvoting you for being a smarmy prick. Not because your comment is inaccurate.
Would you also agree it's rude to imply that this group of researchers, who actually advanced the state of the art in machine learning, are just a bunch of ChatGPT jockeys who don't deserve credit for their work?
I hope you're at least consistent and downvoted yourself, then.
I think those rulings have only applied to creative works. We'll see.
This 100% is classified as a creative work. That's why drugs are able to be patented in the first place.
Depends, what was the training set / knowledge base?