there is something pathetic in mining everyone's data/art without compensating them and then making a work-shopped advertisement video about a hedge hog that's OBVIOUSLY harmless, cute and fun for kids and families

Tim what are you on about? It does the same thing the average person does to learn. Study other people’s art. I get what you’re trying to say but philosophically it doesn’t hold up.

c/acc - 🏴‍☠️🌊 Bring me that Horizon 🍹
Gold League of Legends player ✨hello✨
http://icebreaker.xyz/syed.fc

It's not fair to say that GPT learns the same way as humans. We probably don't know that yet definitely. Also: A machine can scale learning much faster. And it doesn't have feelings, so it may not display the same conflict or risk aversion behavior before imitating someone else's style.

Right it just does it better and faster, but it isn't fundamentally different. So the complaint is akin to compaining about how fast Usain Bolt can run. Which devolves into an argument into what it means to be human. Which is a different argument then the one about compensating for using users public material to learn.

This is an argument a lawyer would make. The mechanism might be more efficient in our brain, but the process is similar enough at a high level that differences would be semantic of the kind that gives defence lawyers and only defence lawyers erections.

We don't know the difference in learning of GPT and the human brain because we don't fully understand how the human brain works.