Raw LLM Responses

17:00 though does have me wonder about work for hire.. as a work for hire is basically someone paid to make materials for someone else and that someone else does have ownership of that content.... so this argument is problematic. “Works made for hire” are an exception to this rule.1 For legal purposes, when a work is a “work made for hire,” the author is not the individual who actually created the work. Instead, the party that hired the individual is considered both the author and the copyright owner of the work 19:00 I actually disagree the more you use AI the more its personality shows itself and the more outputs are "expected" so to say you can't know what AI is going to produce is a little nonsensical as AI outputs have to be gauged to even make meaningful prompts. Again you very much can view this as the more specific the prompt the more specific the output. This might come down to are "general concepts" copyrightable or are they even new? The whole argument is that a unique thing is like a doctorate in that all the good ones are taken and you are going to need to get more specific or reinvent the wheel to make something unique. In fact many "prompt" pieces put together get common outputs.. in order to craft something unique you might need many pieces. These "early generations" are a bit like domain names in that all the good ones are going to be taken early on.. and you will have to create new .domains to get that domain again as something unique. Logic foreshadows itself. The complexity of an idea however can make something more however this goes back to the number of tokens in that something with a whole lot of tokens may be much more complex and difficult for a human to normalize as a stimulus response response.. as complex occurences may be only perceived as subconscious occurences rather than a system simulation of repetitions that are easily tied to our actions creating a defined response. In fact AI may very much show the premise of disconnection is false because it can map inputs to system outputs in the real world such as world computers etc.. meteorology etc.. humans may not be so astute in general to see those connections consciously but they still exist. Some people may have a higher sense of awareness of cause and effect. But to say predict all the words used is as much creation... however in some instances for instance if I prompt AI to make power shell scripts for me, the intents are very specific and my prompts result in the output I want for the desired result... does this mean that I didn't have inputs into what code was generated.. or I was unable to predict it. It seems people who lack an understanding of liason of meaning do not understand how it connects but people who can take smaller ideas and understand how they create outputs in an ai system or the world will understand that liason does exist and these prompt engineerings can be very much intentional inputs to yeild intentional outputs. It is just we are dealing with very large tokens and humans often are refined to more specific triggers that are "simple" and block definitions that humans manage as concrete ideas.. but large ideas need not be seperate as the mind is analog not digital our entire reality is contained in this instance. We have a very large token set always running but working memory may be limited.. but our ability to have desire out outputs may be designed as a state of our being in an instant in time.. it is just we need to define and structure that working memory over a period of time to parse that instance of intent into many smaller parts and work to assemble that instance into something concrete in the world. Copyright really exists in those moments of intent and the final output. That is creation. The time between the intent and the output is the creative process which tools may be used to achieve the output. We don't own the tools just the conception and result. Tools however can be "patented" in the US for example for 20 years. 24:35 I can see where the modification thing is going... so you sent it to a mastering studio and they produced and mastered the song.. well that seems to be pretty substantial. Treating AI content like a demo then polishing it up and copyrighting it .... sounds a bit like the old model of taking an artists work and getting it produced to a commercial standard and label gets big cut for making it pretty. So do they still get the master rights? From another one of my comments on another video "Think of each company's AI from their catalog as a musician with training and knowledge.. the money is in the ability to train on the original "high quality libraries" this is the sticking point in songs that are not freely available you will need to pay to license legal access to that music unless it is already in a free medium. Think of AI as a jukebox.. the idea is you are going to put that quarter into a jukebox not into a musicians hat if that jukebox can play that musicians music. You poison the free water well (you make it legally dangerous) then you can start to sell your own water no one would buy if they could have gotten it for free from the other source... If something isn't in scarcity or controlled commodity the easiest way to make that commodity valued is by creating barriers of access to the low cost stuff. For instance you don't want sugar to flood the local markets and lower the return on your plantations blockade a Island that produces tons of it.. lots of examples of this.. Its not beyond thought the RIAA would kneecap or poison a free source of something to generate revenue. The grand strategy is simply to make AI generated content not commercially useful as contrast with their catalogs very secure and safe collections. Now you don't want to go and use that, you don't know where its been, little Johny over there got real sick from that. It would be ever so unfortunate if something bad were to happen if you used that."