Agree with the premise but about halfway through the writing becomes barely readable AI slop in style. Be honest did you yourself read this all the way through before posting?

Agreed. I was not following the thought process, it read like an LLM agreeing with the author, not like a logical argument being developed.

I literally only had to have my eyes skim 3 words ("the important part") to know this was written by LLM.

Definitely has similar vibes

This is no longer the nerd or even normie consensus (if it ever was)

If you think he was significantly resourceful strapped making Empire and Jedi you are mistaken. At the time they were some of the most expensive films ever made.

Mostly self-funded too (a higher percentage for Jedi than Empire) so even in the original trilogy it was still Lucas signing the checks and making the ultimate decisions. Him being willing to delegate more in those days was personality driven rather than financially driven.

all depends on how you define the terms

Optimus would have to work well enough in the near future for that not gonna happen

We should get rid of ramps and handicapped parking at grocery stores too. If it’s such a large market someone can start their own accessible grocery store…

If they have no value why are they being acquired and scanned?

A flagship LLM today is trained on tens of trillions of tokens, the equivalent of hundreds of millions of 100k word books. No human has that kind of appetite.

As an aside, the entire Google Books corpus is generally estimated at tens of millions of books.

Any original text has value for the purpose of AI training. The argument is that they have no other value.

Exactly. It’s the funniest thing. These books are only being bought by AI companies. It seems pretty clear they only have value to AI companies. Otherwise all these people bemoaning the loss of rare books would be… buying them.

“How dare these companies buy rare and valuable books that nobody else values enough to buy” is a self-canceling argument.

It hadn’t been established yet in the EU. It would be a big deal if it went the other way in Europe so it being the same isn’t a nothing burger.

It hasn’t been established in the US either, despite how desperately some people want to misinterpret the handful of cases so far.

It’s been established in the DC circuit, where basically any challenges to copyright office decisions would need to be brought. For all intents and purposes, until the Supreme Court or Congress decide to weigh in, it’s pretty well established that AI generated content cannot receive copyright. There will probably be some decisions around the edges regarding when human editorial input might result in a copyright being awarded to the editor, but it would be very surprising to see the precedent overturned completely, particularly given its grounding in previous caselaw.

Authorship is also required in the Constitution's section on copyright, and is likely entangled in international treaties. Any change that foundational would probably require a constitutional amendment.

Very clearly established.

AI only = no copyright.

“A Single Piece of American Cheese” got a copyright because it had human involvement in compositing.

Theatre D’Opera did not because it was primarily prompt driven.

Thaler didn’t because he said it was machine derived.

Humans must be involved for a copyright.

Did anyone expect it to go the other way? Europe is more hardcore about copyright than the US, and that's saying something. Germany is practically...well I was going to say they're nazis about it but perhaps that's in poor taste.

That’s not how that would work at all. The copyright of a derivative work has no effect on the existing copyright of an underlying work.

If you record yourself reading a book, you own the audio recording copyright but it would be a copyright violation to reproduce that copy without a license for the underlying rights.

In this situation:

If the AI generates the audio recording of a book, no one owns the copyright of the audio recording but it would still be a copyright violation to reproduce that copy without the underlying rights.