Leaderboard

I hope the author receives just compensation for their idea!

The one we know is the other one, but OK thanks for your heads-up! : ) We have another case very likely then... This is a plague. I have nothing against technology but those people who tend to take advantage from illegitimate access? We're obviously talking about something else in fact... On that case, we're studying right now a legal action based on copyright claim. Now you've brought another case. I've just notified the author on your finding.

Right. That's what I'm saying - the plot is nearly the same as your friend's. "Chichi (Sienna Stevens) writes a letter to Santa Claus for Christmas but accidentally misspells Santa's name. This leads to the letter finding its way to Satan (Paolo Contis), who answers to the girl's wishes. Satan attempts to tempt Chichi to evil, but the girl's virtues resists the demon's plans and changes him instead." Yes, and a number of those evil assholes own the companies that make large language models.

Are you saying that you trained an LLM entirely on things where you owned the copyright and all other appropriate rights? If so, that's cool and ethical. On the other hand, if you're saying that you used one of the existing LLM's that were made by OpenAI/Google/HuggingFace/etc, then you're not using your own stuff. You're using a tool that could not exist without massive copyright theft on a previously unprecedented scale. The part that's black and white to me is silicon valley buttholes who have admitted that their business model cannot possibly function without stealing content. I've heard that some people (Getty images, maybe?) are allowing people to opt in to AI training for some compensation. I think those people will be short sighted and a bit foolish, but the resulting AI would be, in my opinion, fully ethical. Maybe I'll go ask AI how to make my dick bigger than everyone's. That is also very bad. But "Hollywood also steals things" is a kind of a terrible justification for "AI companies steal things." Was your friend's script the one that was used for the Filipino film that google tells me also exists with that name that was made by Mavx productions? If not, it seems like the Phillipines also stole from your friend (and that's also bad). But also, knowing that the other exists makes me want to intentionally not see the Hollywood release and go see the other one, at least partly because I don't like supporting that kind of theft. The phrase doesn't make a lot of sense in English so I don't think you'll have to worry too much about it being stolen. Did you mean something like "Where people present things with good will, a thief finds victims?"

There's a pretty big difference between one person stealing a screenplay or synopsis, and scraping the entire internet to make a generalized tool that billions of people use daily. Both can be unethical, but it's a few orders of magnitude difference in how many people it harms and to what degree. I believe that we should create technology for its own sake. I don't want to halt AI progress. There just needs to be a way to ensure that it benefits all people, particularly the people who (unwillingly/unknowingly) contributed to creating the models.

If you think that it is unethical to copy a commercial movie and personally sell those copies without the permission of the movie's owner, then it's hard to imagine how it could be ethical to use that same movie to train a model that is then sold without the permission of that movie's owner.

I don’t know how you can say that with a straight face. The BFI have just published a report saying that 130,000 films and scripts have been used without permission or accreditation. It is all about violating copyright. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/09/ai-plundering-scripts-poses-direct-threat-to-uk-screen-sector-says-bfi

I think you might need to seek professional help before you go shoot up a pizza restaurant (which doesn't even have a basement). The AltCine people took their camera out and saw a neat-looking building and filmed it. To demonstrate detail, they zoomed in on a thing that has diagonal and curved lines that show aliasing. Please don't turn a camera discussion site into some bullshit about freemason conspiracy theories.

An EVF less Z30 with a big screen sounds very much like one of these to me.

Apologies for the delayed reply. I think it depends how you want to expose. In low light situations, similar to the ones you describe, I find that at least a part of the subject is usually decently well lit. In the example of camping headlights a nearby subject (person, tree, what-have-you) would be illuminated - you can expose fairly normally for it, but everything else (background, distant subjects) will fall off into shadow. And the shadow area will be nicely controlled, not noisy. That looks nice to me on video. The problems come when people want to 'see in the dark', and treat a night time scene a little more like a daytime scene. If you raise distant subjects or background info up, either using exposure or in post, you can run into problems with noise and unnatural colours. Also, to me, the whole scene starts to look 'off' as the viewers mind starts to reject the unnatural light levels being portrayed. If you want the former exposure effect, rather than the latter, I think the C70 is the better option. If you want the latter effect then the C80 is definitely going to win. Funny enough it was head torch only footage that sold me on the C70 in the first place.