Raw LLM Responses

​@jovi_skips it didnt hurt me :) just amuses me, is all. i do not find any important points that deal with some of the base discussions in law and AI research here. (i) what the law actually protects and why, (ii) what the law historically refuses to protect and why (skills, methods, styles, ideas), and (iii) what the ethical and labor-market disputes really are. > corp, research or legal teams dont say 'bruh, its just learning, periodt.' they talk about policy or platform norms, argue for learning/training as transformative knowledge, talk about the emphasis that context and market function still matter. does the creator discuss this?? > there are no important points in this video about legality of/against a machine's internal learning, patterns, training characterization or any popular arguments for/against deep learning (what it truly learns. plain imitation vs genuine, new distrubitional pattern). > people/process can lawfully learn from, imitate, and internalize others' work as knowledge. 'AI art' is not by default screamed out in courts to be all 'theft'. copyright is about protecting the particular expressive form, not the underlying know-how. > copyright cannot be used to seize the building blocks everyone or every process must be free to study and reuse. this major point has countless historical cases that are currently cited, used as a defense for AI. the famous glassmaking case, the "sweat of the brow" cases, the "exclusivity over the methods" cases. > the creator above doesnt talk abt how- the law has repeatedly tolerated intermediate or large-scale copying when the purpose is to extract unprotected information or enable a new function. [ search, indexing cases, sega v accolade case, sony's intermediate copying case. ] *countless* big cases have reached the decision: copying can be legally tolerated when it is necessary for learning. does the creator discuss this?? > society has always allowed learning from what is publicly accessible; > copyright is not a right to prevent learning; > and fair use has repeatedly protected intermediate copying when the use is non-consumptive and transformative in function. i dont see the creator's deep dive into these?? what does he do above-? he simply farms views by picking select few, weak, silly comments, retaliates by opening their pages and mocking them. there is a proper formalization for lawsuits, for unbounded scraping, for market substitution and consumptive analysis. (really valid concerns and cases). but this creator's video is over 50% of mocking AI bros, tech bros, AI prompters, random commenters.