Anyone who argues that LLMs are "just stochastic parrots" fundamentally doesn't understand what neural networks do. The power does not come from sampling from a distributions over words but from the multi-dimensional representation. And it is that that enables LLMs to be more than just mechanisms that produce copies of material previously seen in training.
That game has already been made, and even variants of it.
Put an iPhone on the dashboard of a car and simultaneously record steering wheel, pedal, and gear positions, and you've got a photorealistic driving simulator of wherever you were driving that car.
Strap it to a bodycam and pair with annotated recordings the wearer's motion as if it were control inputs, and you have a photrealistic first-person simulation of whatever they were doing, be that paintball, skating, US Army urban combat training, or birdwatching.
Feed it sports TV annotated with player motion, golf, tenis, cricket, soccer, etc.
> I think you are misunderstanding what this tech demo actually is, but I will engage with what I think your gripe is — AI tooling trivializing the skillsets of programmers, artists, and designers.
By the time he got to "power tool" he was talking about something else entirely.
You're still just saying that while stealing a lot from one person is wrong, stealing only a little but from many people would be OK. And the people who are stolen from don't agree with you.
Which seems to be exactly what these models are doing
Satisfactory the game didn't "steal" from Factorio - they took the idea of an automated factory game from them, brought it into a 3d world instead of 2d, and pulled in some other ideas, perhaps from other games. This is a hell of a lot closer to stealing than an LLM taking 0.001% each from 100000 images to create something new.. and yet no-one would ever call it such
It's disturbing because it's automated on an insane scale, not because of a solid legal ground
The only valid text makers are humans.
These aren't novel situations. We have centuries of case studies, precedent, and cultural osmosis giving us legal and de facto means of what we feel and say is "stealing intellectual property".
It's not like tribes and families also didn't keep secrets to maintain some power or as matter of trade. We call them "trade secrets" now but those go back before recorded history.
In addition, consider thar back the we had actual communities, unlike now. Bring those back and we can talk about tearing down copyright.