@FatCrab@slrpnk.net
member since 26 Jun 2025 17:54
comments
- on OpenAI launches legal-focused AI platform, escalating race for law firm users in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5d ago
-
on ‘Doom Loop’: OpenAI and Microsoft Admits LLMs Are Destroying the Web and Built on Theft in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5d ago
So the admission of intentionally circumventing the NYT paywall is where this becomes a real actual IP infringement issue for them. From a legal perspective, that is literally as crazy a thing to come out in discovery as Anthropic’s torrenting an enormous chunk of their training corpus. These are IP infringements, totally irrespective their use in training GPTs. I cannot imagine having to represent these idiots.
-
on US government sides with OpenAI on issue of training LLMs on copyrighted material: »it is critical for the United States to ‘retain global leadership in artificial intelligence.« in c/technology@lemmy.world · 2 Sep 2026
Schwartz was saving and distributing copies against the terms of the agreement by which he was able to access journals. What happened to him was heinous but it was pretty dissimilar to how models train on data. And the tormented material was Anthropic, which resulted in the largest copyright settlement in history. Because it was piracy. They briefly tried an argument that their intended use made it fair use, but…that’s never how literally any of that worked.
-
on When AI art has no author: Study finds generated images often can’t be traced to training data in c/technology@lemmy.world · 20 Aug 2026
I don’t think this is really all that surprising if you understand how diffusers actually work. They don’t just draw contours and shit. They apply sequential transformations across a matrix of pixels in an iterative fashion, the transformation varies each iteration based on prompt embeddings and the surrounding pixels of each respective transformation, typically starting from a seed of arbitrary static. A lot of images share overwhelmingly identical techniques, with a tiny sliver being responsible for the truly creative deltas. Diffusers effectively learn techniques so it tracks that dropping singular training data here and there doesn’t change much.
-
on Supermassive Games announces layoffs, up to 75 positions to be affected in c/games@lemmy.world · 13 Aug 2026
I have prosecuted plenty of trademarks. The logos and words are separate trademarks. For the word mark alone, Supergiant and Supermassive absolutely are likely to raise an initial LOC rejection in the same exact class of goods and services. It boils down to whether the similar words are likely to leave a confusingly similar market impression upon consumers. I legit think here it would be hard to argue around with a typical examining attorney–but the trademark office has a ton more lattitude in grants than the patent office, so it isn’t out of the question it could’ve been successfully argued or even granted initially.
-
on Supermassive Games announces layoffs, up to 75 positions to be affected in c/games@lemmy.world · 12 Aug 2026
It boils down to likelihood of confusion. I think there would be a legitimate concern here, tbh. But they could have come to an agreement when one registered their mark after the other one had already.
I am not as optimistic about the real value of this as you are, but my practice is, ironically, IP and general advanced software counseling specialized in ML and decentralized/distributed network tech, so ymmv. Nevertheless, I think the increasing prevalence bodes poorly for the industry and consumers for two very specific reasons. For the industry, a major part of making good lawyers is by having green lawyers be shit lawyers under close supervision and lots of repetition. The rise of legal AI has already totally short circuited that fundamental process quite a bit. The other concern i have is that consumer reliance on these technologies actually pressures legal systems to converge towards greater convolution and arbitrary heterogeneousnes. This is bad because it (a) makes human inspection less and less feasible, (b) introduces a great many failure points that we’ll never be able to discern until it’s too late because of (a), and © makes the surviving equivalent of practitioners (and even automated systems) more vulnerable to the myriad issues with hyperspecialization. It is noteworthy that these are very similar issues facing the software industry.