What exactly are you suggesting here? That using an LLM to reverse-engineer a video game, modify its code, and create an entirely new experience constitutes plagiarism?
Do you understand what plagiarism actually means? It means passing off someone else’s work as your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone uses AI to reverse-engineer software, modify an existing game, or develop an entirely new way to experience it.
There may be legitimate arguments to be made about copyright infringement and intellectual property rights, but those are entirely different discussions.
And what does the statement about AI companies being the only ones allowed to plagiarize even mean? Are you suggesting that modifying an existing video game is somehow equivalent to an AI company training a model on copyrighted material?
You’re conflating completely different concepts, and the result is an accusation that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what’s being discussed.
What I’ve presented here is the absurd concept that AI companies exist after having stolen a wealth of human intellectual property and haven’t paid for or attributed any value to the original creators. And now that they have this, they are gatekeeping how it gets used.
But I said it in a punchy one-liner with a sarcastic undertone, and I’m afraid that’s where I lost you.
Your reverse engineering argument might have a point but plagiarism regarding AI should be more obvious. Indeed AI is trained on the collective publicly available knowledge humans have deposited on the internet and then sold back to the same people for a fee without any acknowledgement let alone sharing of profits in someway. It is similar to the kind of unethical behaviour where some academic publishers are employing aggressive marketing strategies to sell public science back to public at high costs. Ofcourse there is still the argument that these AI companies are only charging for operational costs, which may be true for some. But I am willing to bet money that if LLMs becomes an integral part of the modern world then they will turn down this tap to a bare trickle at exorbitant prices. Sam Altman himself confessed as much (he said something along the lines of envisioning a future where AI becomes an on demand information and skill tap, you fill in the rest). Operating something at a loss is a known capitalistic strategy to get people used to your product and drive smaller competition out of market so in a decade or so you become the monopolistic owner of an essential service.
Not because of plagiarism. It’s not concerned about plagiarism. It’s concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.
Absolutely! Private corporations are going to milk these models for everything they can fortunately, there’s a lot of really good open source out there.
Open source developer here, AI is regularly being used to erase the original developers and artists.
You know what I liked in memes with “stolen” art? There was something to look up to, there was something to become part of our collective culture. Call me a hippie or “irrational” but this is why AI is like the second coming of asbestos, even if it becomes better over time.
Here’s my game engine, feel free to fork the shit out of it. Feel free to rewrite it in Rust to “make it better”. Feel free to borrow parts of it. My only problem if you do it with AI, so you neither learn during the process of doing it, and you manage to erase me in the process.
The whole reverse engineering craze is being used, so most game devs will be so disillusioned they will leave the industry, and AI vendors can sell expensive subscriptions instead. The AI bros are really angry, that their shiny new technology didn’t immediately disrupt the existing creative industry enough.
Once again, this comment doesn’t make any sense. The word plagiarize is being misused here AI companies and their product the llm aren’t committing plagiarism. So I’m not sure who you want them to credit. They have already disclosed where they’re getting their training data from do you want them to name every individually? And even if they did, what conceivable purpose would that serve? None of them are getting any royalties from it. Because using training data isn’t necessarily copyright infringement and is in fact still an ongoing legal matter in the courts. And even if they did, the amount of information that is used as training data is so massive that a credit section wouldn’t use all usability it can tens of thousands of individual names. You ever sit there and read the credits at the end of the movie?
Only the AI companies are allowed to plagiarize.
What exactly are you suggesting here? That using an LLM to reverse-engineer a video game, modify its code, and create an entirely new experience constitutes plagiarism?
Do you understand what plagiarism actually means? It means passing off someone else’s work as your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone uses AI to reverse-engineer software, modify an existing game, or develop an entirely new way to experience it.
There may be legitimate arguments to be made about copyright infringement and intellectual property rights, but those are entirely different discussions.
And what does the statement about AI companies being the only ones allowed to plagiarize even mean? Are you suggesting that modifying an existing video game is somehow equivalent to an AI company training a model on copyrighted material?
You’re conflating completely different concepts, and the result is an accusation that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what’s being discussed.
What I’ve presented here is the absurd concept that AI companies exist after having stolen a wealth of human intellectual property and haven’t paid for or attributed any value to the original creators. And now that they have this, they are gatekeeping how it gets used.
But I said it in a punchy one-liner with a sarcastic undertone, and I’m afraid that’s where I lost you.
Your reverse engineering argument might have a point but plagiarism regarding AI should be more obvious. Indeed AI is trained on the collective publicly available knowledge humans have deposited on the internet and then sold back to the same people for a fee without any acknowledgement let alone sharing of profits in someway. It is similar to the kind of unethical behaviour where some academic publishers are employing aggressive marketing strategies to sell public science back to public at high costs. Ofcourse there is still the argument that these AI companies are only charging for operational costs, which may be true for some. But I am willing to bet money that if LLMs becomes an integral part of the modern world then they will turn down this tap to a bare trickle at exorbitant prices. Sam Altman himself confessed as much (he said something along the lines of envisioning a future where AI becomes an on demand information and skill tap, you fill in the rest). Operating something at a loss is a known capitalistic strategy to get people used to your product and drive smaller competition out of market so in a decade or so you become the monopolistic owner of an essential service.
Chatgpt won’t give me bass sheet music to Ella Fitzgerald’s version of How High the Moon, due to concerns of edit: copyright issues (not plagiarism.).
I wouldn’t put it past anthropic to deny the request.
Not because of plagiarism. It’s not concerned about plagiarism. It’s concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
you’re right I went back into my conversations and it was indeed because of copyright issues not plagiarism
Absolutely! Private corporations are going to milk these models for everything they can fortunately, there’s a lot of really good open source out there.
Open source developer here, AI is regularly being used to erase the original developers and artists.
You know what I liked in memes with “stolen” art? There was something to look up to, there was something to become part of our collective culture. Call me a hippie or “irrational” but this is why AI is like the second coming of asbestos, even if it becomes better over time.
Here’s my game engine, feel free to fork the shit out of it. Feel free to rewrite it in Rust to “make it better”. Feel free to borrow parts of it. My only problem if you do it with AI, so you neither learn during the process of doing it, and you manage to erase me in the process.
The whole reverse engineering craze is being used, so most game devs will be so disillusioned they will leave the industry, and AI vendors can sell expensive subscriptions instead. The AI bros are really angry, that their shiny new technology didn’t immediately disrupt the existing creative industry enough.
Well tell me where AI companies are giving credit
Once again, this comment doesn’t make any sense. The word plagiarize is being misused here AI companies and their product the llm aren’t committing plagiarism. So I’m not sure who you want them to credit. They have already disclosed where they’re getting their training data from do you want them to name every individually? And even if they did, what conceivable purpose would that serve? None of them are getting any royalties from it. Because using training data isn’t necessarily copyright infringement and is in fact still an ongoing legal matter in the courts. And even if they did, the amount of information that is used as training data is so massive that a credit section wouldn’t use all usability it can tens of thousands of individual names. You ever sit there and read the credits at the end of the movie?
“The internet” is not actually a valid source.
Yes, I indeed want people to be named individually. The internet is not one Organisation that people generate IP for.
Of course crediting everybody would be ridiculous, but stealing the entire internet is not?