Maintainers do not owe you this, in addition to maintaining the software that you can use for free. You're entitled to be upset, and they're just as entitled to say "please go somewhere else to vent, we're busy".
If they don't want to provide the best possible product and not accept outside contributions, they should not provide a free and open source repository.
Well, it may be legal to create such a painting, but (depending on details) it may be a derivative work, in which case the original work's copyright still applies.
In other words, in your example, the painter is not necessarily free to distribute their painting while ignoring the original image's copyright.
Of course, this is not about the works. This is about the painter, and it's mostly not about exact duplication of the work but about works based on their previous work. You know, like other painters do.
Ostensibly, they want to prevent OpenAI, and any algorithm from making works based on their work.
But, frankly, what they really want is not really that. What they really want is to prevent it from making any works at all.
People here testing out the example on this page and reporting errors seem to be missing the fact that this demo is "trained" on one example. The linked paper[0] goes into error rates, and they get better pretty quickly with a few more examples.
Yeah that plus the claim of AGI in the Enterprise plan tipped me off. But you're right, I was momentarily convinced this was real and was about to very tactfully tell them they were destined for failure. :)
It took me a moment to see your point: it might take less information to store the entire game using a chess engine by entropy coding than a single position
Maintainers do not owe you this, in addition to maintaining the software that you can use for free. You're entitled to be upset, and they're just as entitled to say "please go somewhere else to vent, we're busy".