fafferlicious

A good journalist does not just write for themselves, they must also write for the audience as the audience. They are the readers proxy and ask questions on behalf of the reader.

Imagine a generic shmuck that has no idea ctrl +c and ctrl +v are hot keys.

Now. Do you think they have any concept of what type of duplication tools exist? Do you think they’d just want to use this “super cool everything” software that AI is billed as? After all, it’s supposed to be smart right? They say it’s the next best thing and it’s almost like magic.

Look, I’m not saying it’s a great article. But given all the bullshit hype regular people hear about AI. Is it really unreasonable to think “copilot, help me find duplicated files in my one drive” would be something good old Billy would try?

Maybe it’s not a great article because there are better ways to de-duplicate photos. But that isn’t the fucking point of the article. The article is “look at how AI still fucking fails at basic shit we expect it to be good at.”

And for that, I thank the author. We need way more of that.

Legitimate question.

How is the act of an AI company downloading a copyrighted work and adding it into their “dataset” to generate a summary different from an individual downloading a copyrighted work and adding it to their “dataset” and writing a summary?

Both instances require consuming the material in some way. Both instances generate something new, transformative of the original work.

Why do AI companies get to torrent the entirety of human knowledge, but if any single person does it… Well we know what happened with Napster. Limewire. Kazaa. Megaupload.

Because to me, that hints at a flaw in your logic. AI companies are violating copyright. They had no permission to consume the copyrighted works.