This is the second time I’ve seen Kagi referenced with their summariser. It looks super useful, and the fact their summary references their points is just spectacular.
My only concern is around running out of searches with their basic plan.
The ground noise is expected to be around 60 dB(A), about 1/1000 as loud as current supersonic aircraft. This is achieved by using a long, narrow airframe and canards to keep the shock waves from coalescing.[4] It should create a 75 Perceived Level decibel (PLdB) thump on ground, as loud as closing a car door, compared with 105-110 PLdB for the Concorde.[5] Wikipedia
Cool. A car door closing is far more acceptable than thinking you’re being bombed. But yeah, the nose on it is really long. Considering that this experimental craft can only carry a pilot, any kind of passenger craft using the same technique would have to be absolutely enormous.
Yeah, I laughed at that part. The bot does what it interprets from the training data. Her entire schtick is leaning into sexual overtones to keep the guys subscribed. The fact that the bot started replicating that is entirely expected.
The trick there is that there is a fine line she walks between keeping it overt enough to keep the guys interested, but not so forward as to cross the terms of service boundaries on Twitch/YouTube. I think the problem is really that the bot isn’t adhering to the “tone it down so we don’t get banned from the service” unwritten rule. I’m not sure if I’d call that “rogue” though.
But, this is a great use case for a LLM, and if she can capitalise on it then good on her.
Keep in mind that you cannot copyright ideas. You copyright the specific implementation of those ideas. So simply mentioning Zaphod Beeblebrox doesn’t trigger anything to do with copyright, but if you had a word for word introduction of Zaphod Beeblebrox copied straight from Hitchhiker’s Guide that would be a problem.
Then after that you can normally have “de minimus” use, where you can use a small portion (think quotes, short phrases etc). As long as your work can’t be used as a replacement for the original then you are normally in the clear (legally speaking, as far as copyright goes).
But none of this goes into trademark law, but that’s a whole other thing and are generally easier to avoid too (e.g. don’t use the word “coke” to sell your drink).
TL;DR: As long as the AI doesnt spit out a verbatim copy of the original, and then if you copied it verbatim from the AI, then you’d be in trouble.
I am not a lawyer, just a dude interested in copyright law.