I can assure you, that you didn't grant a license with an exclusive list of operations that can be performed on your work of art. At best you may have had something like "no commercial use" clause and general broad terms.

But the problem of attribution is easily understandable to any human with a modicum of intelligence.

Imagine that you have a trillion input images, with every single one having a source associated. When training they go through lots of processes and every single image contributes a varying degree to a subset of 8billion parameters. That alone would produce a dataset that is 1T * 8B to just say how much a particular image contributed to the output...

To mimic intelligence the output is also randomized - the association is not static and every single pixel in the output has it's own lineage.

So as you can probably imagine that to calculate the actual source weights on the output you'd require to do at least 8e+21 calculations per output pixel... and require double precision floating point while you do it.

We know how to do it. It's just ridiculously expensive.

(The above example is for demonstrative purposes only)

If it all was non-profit - then no one would raise the ethical issue.

Music conglomerates have money and their lawsuits will probably settle the issue.(unless they settle) That will be applied for all copyrighted works, regardless of the medium.

I believe going against the big guys is the reason why the big ones don't yet have music generation LLMs.

It's not hard when someone inputs "create in style of studio ghibli" to say that studio Ghibli should get a cut. It's very different when you don't specify the source for the origin style.

And if you tried to identify the source material owner, the percentage of the output image that their work contributed to would be extremely - if not infinitely - small. You'd get minuscule payouts.

That is the gap in the legal landscape.

PS: I categorically disagree that AI developers are rent-seekers, unless they require rent for the products their models generate

You don't even need to have a legally acquired source material to produce work in a certain style.

The new reality allows for original creators to actually track the chain, so we're in this situation.

To a degree it is protected, but not by copyright. Design patents are a thing and companies have sued each other over them (Apple vs Samsung during the "smartphone wars" comes to mind)

And you presume that the code hasn't been read or understood by a human. AI doesn't click merge on a PR, so it's highly likely that the code has been read by a human.

You, on the other hand, truly have never encountered any information about Thai grammar or (surprisingly) hot to build a jet turbine. (I can explain in general terms how to build one from just watching Discovery channel)

The difference is that the models actually have some information on those topics.

How is this easier or faster than writing a few lines of code at BFF?

Therefore requests between GQL and downstream services are travelling "over the wire" (though I don't see it as an issue)

Having REST apis that return only "fat" objects is really not the most secure way of designing APIs

And yes, current models are amazing at reducing time it takes to push out a feature or fix a bug. I wouldn't even consider working at a company that banned use of AI to help me write code.

PS: It's also irrelevant to whether it's AI generated or not, what matters is if it works and is secure.