With music this often ends up in civil court. Pretty sure the same can in theory happen for written texts, but the commercial value of most written texts is not worth the cost of litigation.

That was literally in my post. Obviously, in that case the library pays for copyright

Another good question is why AIs do not mindlessly regurgitate source material. The reason is that they have access to so much copyrighted material. If they were trained on only one book, they would constantly regurgitate material from that one book. Because it’s trained on many (millions) books, it’s able to get creative. So the argument of OpenAI really boils down to: “we are not breaking copyright law, because we have used sufficient copyrighted material to avoid directly infringing on copyright”.

I know my way around the Jolly Roger myself. At the same time using copyrighted materials in a commercial setting (as OpenAI does) shouldn’t be free.

I am also not really getting the argument. If I as a human want to learn a subject from a book I buy it ( or I go to a library who paid for it). If it’s similar to how humans learn, it should cost equally much.

The issue is of course that it’s not at all similar to how humans learn. It needs VASTLY more data to produce something even remotely sensible. Develop AI that’s truly transformative, by making it as efficient as humans are in learning, and the cost of paying for copyright will be negligible.

The current generation of data hungry AI models with energy requirements of a small country should be replaced ASAP, so if copyright laws spur innovation in that direction I am all for it.

There’s a huge difference between day/night storage which is sufficient for most locations in the world that are somewhat closer to the equator, and seasonal storage. We have no good solution for seasonal storage at the moment.

Not sure about that. For high school math it is still quite important that students are familiar with circles and angles on circles. Analogue clocks are a gentle introduction to this.

Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.