Not just code. You can plagiarize pretty much any content. Just prompt the model to make it look unique, and that’s it, in 30s you have a whole copy of someone’s else work in a way that cannot easily be identified as plagiarism.
I struggle to find this argument compelling, as it sounds more of a straw man argument than a legitimate complain.
If I write a hash table implementation in C, am I plagiarizing? I did not come up with the algortithm nor the language used for implementation; I "borrowed" ideas from existing knowledge.
Lets say I implemented it after learning the algorithm from GPL code; is ky implementation a new one, or is it derivative?
What if it is from a book?
What about the asm upcodes generated? In some architectures, they are copyrighted, or at least the documentation is considered " intellectual property"; is my C compiler stealing?
Is a hammer or a mallot an obvious creation, or is it stealing from someone else? What about a wheel?
> I struggle to find this argument compelling, as it sounds more of a straw man argument than a legitimate complain.
Dude, there are entire websites dedicated to using diffusion models to rip off the styles of specific artists so that people can have their "work" without paying them for it.
You can debate the ethics of this all you want, but if you're going to speak on plagiarism using generative AI, you should at least know as much as the average teenager does about it.
"dude", I could counter-argue that many modern art is "ripping off" Turner's work, but since you know so much about the art world, I'm assuming you know what I'm saying.
Filters for "Van Gogh" or "Impressionist" or "watercolor" have existed for decades now; are they ripping of previous work without paying for it?
When does a specific trace becomes "intellectual property" to be ripped off? Does Mondrian holds the rights on colored squares?
If you don't understand that every living or read artist was "inspired" (modified) by what he saw and experienced, I don't know what to tell you; you come off as one of those people that seem to think that "art" is inspiration; There's a somewhat well known composer in my country that used to say "inspiration is for amateurs".
Having that posture is, in itself, a position of utter and complete ignorance. If you don't understand how you need to absorb something before you transcend it, and how the things you absorbed will define your own transcendence, you know nothing about the creative process and their inner workings; Sure, if a machine does it, and if it uses well-known iteration processes, one can argue if it is art, an artistic manifestation or - better yet - if it has intellectual rights that can be "ripped off"; But beating on the chest and claiming stealing, like somehow a musician never played any melodies composed by someone else or a painter never used the technique or subject decomposition as their peers or their ancestors is, frankly, naive.
Conflating a machine that uses the works of a living, working artist to mimic their style with a watercolor filter is so disingenuous it doesn’t deserve a response. Don’t waste my time with this run-on drivel when you wont engage with the topic at hand.
> works of a living, working artist to mimic their style
Got it. You're picking up one specific example and making it your whole position. I'd suggest you have a look at animation from the 60's to early 80's to understand that ghibli is also an incremental style.
Also, I'd suggest you look at advanced (non ai) tools that mimick both the media and techniques usined in more conventional art.
> engage with the topic at hand
Your point was plagiarism and that I looked like an uninformed teenager. I addressed them both. We don't have to agree on the same thing, but moving goalposts is not a healthy discussion strategy.
I made one example for you when you suggested that the original author made a strawman, and you went on an unhinged rant in response with no bearing on the subject. No goalposts have been moved - you are simply rambling on unrelated nonsense to avoid something as simple as admitting a point you don’t like is not a strawman.
This is immature and unproductive, I wont be responding any further.
If we’re talking about AI as a concept - sure. But there are tools made specifically for this purpose, to the point that some artist’s names are preprogrammed into them for use. That’s a bit beyond what you’re saying, that’s a tool you can blame.
When I get an obviously AI-generated response from someone I'm trying to do business with, it makes me think less of them. I do value genuine responses, far more than the saccharine responses AI comes up with.
Yes. People want to know that others are spending time on an interaction. Taking short-cuts feels impersonal.
There are people with better and worse social skills. Some can, in a very short period of time, make you feel heard and appreciated. Others can spend ten times as long but struggle to have a similar effect. Does it make sense to 'grade' on effort? On results? On skill? On efforts towards building skills? On loyalty? Something else?
Our instincts are largely tuned to our ancestral environment. Even our social and cultural values that got us to say ~2023 have not caught up yet.
We're looking for 'proof of humanity' in our interactions -- this is part of who we are. But how do we get it with online interactions now?
Maybe we have to give up any expectation of humanity if you can't the person right in front of you?
Strap in, the derivative of the derivative of crazy sh1t is increasing.
There will always be a market for niche, high quality electron tweaking. Thing is, it will be a highly competitive market, way outside of reach for >90% of today's professionals, thats why people are worried.
People that don't know that "computer" used to be a profession back in the day.
Hi, I’m the author of the article and the person who designed and implemented the specs transforms. At Stainless we’ve been using an internal version since around the end of 2022 that grew organically to 50+ commands. They have been commonly used by our largest customers to workaround various spec issues without necessitating upstream changes. This year we took the time to reflect on that experience and designed a small set of operations that are more flexible, more intuitive, and compose well together. And made them available to everyone. That’s the version presented in this blog post.
VPNs is such a shady industry, I really don't blame companies for blocking them. 99% of people using a VPN do not understand they are giving all their traffic to a random company in a jurisdiction they can't verify, with privacy policies they didn't read, operated by people they've never heard of, based entirely on marketing claims and affiliate-driven "reviews".
There is pretty much zero regulatory oversight. The ownership structure of VPN companies is opaque, often owned by holding companies. For example Kape Technologies owns ExpressVPN, PIA, CyberGhost, etc.
reply