Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 4:48:08 PM
X
In reply to:
Kat Loveland Voice Actor
@kat_loveland
·
575d
@BradHutchings @BorgoniaBorgy @ChinpoKoumori @GaryMarcus Generative AI fails every single one of these four points. There is not a single point listed that any reasonable judge would say generative AI is falling under Fair use. Stop smoking crack.
Kat Loveland Voice Actor
@kat_loveland
·
575d
@BradHutchings @BorgoniaBorgy @ChinpoKoumori @GaryMarcus God you're an idiot..Google used a small percent for their API. Gen AI literally uses billions of images and has to keep getting more to train. The CEOs already fucking admitted that if they had to pay for the amount of data needed they wouldn't be able to make GenAi work.
Brad Hutchings 🍌🐶
@BradHutchings
·
575d
@BorgoniaBorgy @ChinpoKoumori @GaryMarcus Google was willing over Java APIs, as cited in that article. And they did just fine on the four factor test in front of the Supreme Court.
OpenAI is already going to court. There are a plethora of defenses they can float in the process. There's a big technical difference between…
Article 3 BILL OF RIGHTS
@BorgoniaBorgy
·
575d
@BradHutchings @ChinpoKoumori @GaryMarcus "Not all have to be satisfied".

Are you willing to go to court with that assumption?. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyc…
Brad Hutchings 🍌🐶
@BradHutchings
·
575d
@ChinpoKoumori @GaryMarcus No. It's a balancing test of four factors, not all have to be satisfied. Training is not making a copy. And the United States doesn't have artist rights as to how content is used like the EU does.

Relevant case law here might be Google v. Oracle.
Ecks Knight
@ChinpoKoumori
·
576d
@BradHutchings @GaryMarcus (Looks up fair use)
Oh, so you are wrong.

The statement in question appears to be a sarcastic comment in response to a heated debate about the legality of generative AI and its use of copyrighted material. The term 'hopium' is used metaphorically to suggest that someone is overly optimistic or perhaps delusional about the situation. The tone is informal and somewhat mocking, but it does not seem to be intended to cause harm or insult.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not seem to be intended to cause harm, but sarcasm can sometimes be perceived as dismissive or disrespectful. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy and does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The use of sarcasm may not promote understanding or empathy, but it does not actively discourage it either.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement is part of a dialogue, although it may not be the most constructive form of criticism.
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no indication of a mistake that needs to be acknowledged or corrected. [+1]
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The influence of the statement on society is likely minimal and neutral.
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement uses the platform to express an opinion, which is a form of free speech, but the sarcastic tone may not reflect the most responsible use of this right. [-1]