OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
There's also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn't be a business.
No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it's the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.
Businesses relying on free things. Logging, mining, ranching, and oil come to mind. Extracting free resources of the land belonging to the public, destroying those public lands and selling those resources back to the public at an exorbitant markup.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I always felt using publicly available but copyrighted works could be ok but only if the model is publicly available as well
-
It's all the same shit. No patents and copyrights should exist.
Is it? In Sam's case, we're mostly talking about creative products in the form of text, audio, and video. If an artist releases a song and the song is copyrighted, it doesn't hamper innovation and technological development. The same cannot be said when a company patents a sorting algorithm, the method for swiping to unlock a smartphone, or something similar.
-
It should exist
A creator should own their creation and be able to defend misuse of it for a period of time. Current copyright laws are bullshit though.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"How am I supposed to make any money if I can't steal all of my products to sell back to the world that produced them?"
Yeah, fuck that. The whole industry deserves to die.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Guarantee their plan is to blow through copyright laws to create a monopoly fiefdom, close the door behind them and demand that copyright is used to protect the work their LLM creates.
-
Sam Altman is a grifter, but on this topic he is right.
The reality is, that IP laws in their current form hamper innovation and technological development. Stephan Kinsella has written on this topic for the past 25 years or so and has argued to reform the system.
Here in the Netherlands, we know that it's true. Philips became a great company because they could produce lightbulbs here, which were patented in the UK. We also had a booming margarine business, because we weren't respecting British and French patents and that business laid the foundation for what became Unilever.
And now China is using those exact same tactics to build up their industry. And it gives them a huge competitive advantage.
A good reform would be to revert back to the way copyright and patent law were originally developed, with much shorter terms and requiring a significant fee for a one time extension.
The current terms, lobbied by Disney, are way too restrictive.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Porque no los dos?
The ai race is over AND we abolish the copyright bullshit laws we have now?
-
Then die. I don't know what else to tell you.
If your business model is predicated on breaking the law then you don't deserve to exist.
You can't send people to prison for 5 years and charge them $100,000 for downloading a movie and then turn around and let big business do it for free because they need to "train their AI model" and call one of thief but not the other...
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ip should solely be with the creator and not the corporation that owns that creator. A lot of problems in stems is IP held hostage by the corporations and by publishing companies of research papers
-
This post did not contain any content.
So what Altman is saying here is that without the low hanging fruit of human generated training data, the AI race is over.
He's either full of shit or this AI bubble is about to burst.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes, please.
-
This post did not contain any content.
chatgpt is stagnant, the newest model was lackluster despite using way more resources and costing a shitload of cash, Altman is floundering and on his way out he’s going to try do some lobbying bullshit
Copyright is bullshit and honestly if it disappeared it would help small creators more than anything but openai is not a small creator and guaranteed they will lobby for only huge corps like them to get such an exception. You and I will still get sued to shit by disney or whoever for daring to make $500 off of a shitty project that used some sample or something while meta and openai get free reign to steal the entirety of humanity’s creative output with no recompense
-
Aaron Swartz was 100% opposed to all copyright laws, you remember that yah?
And he also said "child pornography is not necessarily abuse."
In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.
This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won't make the abuse go away. We don't arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.
Wired has an article on how these laws destroy honest people's lives.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130116210225/http://bits.are.notabug.com/
Big yikes from me whenever I see him venerated.
-
A creator should own their creation and be able to defend misuse of it for a period of time. Current copyright laws are bullshit though.
I was thinking at the same thing
-
Oh no! How will I generate a picture of Sam Altman blowing himself now!?
Wdym? He removed his rib or something?
-
It is because a human artist is usually inspired and uses knowledge to create new art and AI is just a mediocre mimic. A human artist doesn't accidentally put six fingers on people on a regular basis. If they put fewer fingers it is intentional.
If your argument is that it depends on the quality of the output, then I definitely shouldn't be allowed to look at art or read books.
-
How many pages has a human author read and written before they can produce something worth publishing? I’m pretty sure that’s not even a million pages. Why does an AI require a gazillion pages to learn, but the quality is still unimpressive? I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the way we teach these models.
Because an AI is not a human brain?
It's impressive how the technology have advanced in the last years. But obviously it is not a human brain.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That sounds like a you problem.
"Our business is so bad and barely viable that it can only survive if you allow us to be overtly unethical", great pitch guys.
I mean that's like arguing "our economy is based on slave plantations! If you abolish the practice, you'll destroy our nation!"
