My takeaway from that is that every ai model should have a disclosure as to what it was trained on. If it can create art with significant resemblance to work that was not included in the disclosure, that would be proof of a failure to disclose, which should come with repercussions.
Imo plagiarism machines should face the same repercussions as humans that do plagiarism. Obfuscation by a black box shouldn't protect the plagiarist from liability.
Honey lost 40% of their users and has 4.6 stars on the Chrome webstore, which tells us a lot about the trustworthyness of the star ratings in the various Google stores.
"NU.nl noted that, under the Match Act, American companies would still be allowed to sell their most advanced chip etching machines to Chinese customers. China has discovered that, using these etching techniques and DUV machines, they could produce chips that typically require an EUV machine."
Rules for thee, but not for me. Nobody likes a bully, decoupling from the USA becomes ever more inevitable.
You might be on to something. There's so many languages where the short word for mother is some variation of "ma". Likewise with da/ba/pa for the father.
I read a science fiction book from Iain M Banks over the holidays that was set in a rogue star system that was millions of light years away from the nearest galaxy. No matter how advanced that society could get, they would never be able to travel to the nearest star. They were doomed to isolation in their 1 star system basically. Compared to that, a mere 40 light-years at least gives the hope that it might one day be possible to travel there within a few life times (or less) of traveling.
Ignoring the fact that that would be so unlikely as to be nearly impossible, art that is almost identical to other art is a clear case of plagiarism. The method that was used to create the copy should not matter. A painter copying a photographer's art without proper attribution or renumeration, is still plagiazing. They might have used different tools, but it's still a copy.