Pro tip: Read the actual court decision and not just the headlines.
Tech law journalism is a telephone game that usually distorts what was actually said. People then form strong opinions on the headlines. Chaos ensues.
Example: “AI art cannot be copyrighted - US Federal Judge”
That’s not what the judge decided. The decision said you can’t assign a copyright to an AI. This doesn’t mean the thing you create with AI can’t be copyrighted. You write a prompt, press a button, cause something to be created, etc., and you’re the author not the AI.
They're deprecating all the completion/edit models.
The chat models constantly argue with you on certain tasks and are highly opinionated. A completion API was a lot more flexible and "vanilla" about a wide variety of tasks, you could start a thought, or a task, and truly have it complete it.
The chat API doesn't complete, it responds (I mean of course internally it completes, but completes a response, rather than a continuation).
I find this a big step back, I hope the competition steps in to fill the gaps OpenAI keeps opening.
In case it's not obvious, this is a concrete departure from rudimentary "prompt engineering".
Dialog-based interfaces, such as a context-aware conversation, are better at conveying human intent and provide a more natural way to interact with model capabilities.
With all the excitement around Stable Diffusion, it’s nice to have an easy API to plug into for product development.
The API supports three endpoints (generation, edits, and variation), but doesn’t support fine-tunes - which are capturing peoples attention now with deepfake avatars.
