OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
To be fair, they’re not wrong. We need to find a legal comprise that satisfies everyone
Why? Nothing they've shat out is good for anything anyway.
-
Why? Nothing they've shat out is good for anything anyway.
If not, AI is dead in the US
Technically, everything you write is copyrighted
-
Extracting free resources of the land
Not to be contrarian, but there is a cost to extract those "free" resources; like labor, equipment, transportation, lobbying (AKA: bribes for the non-Americans), processing raw material into something useful, research and development, et cetera.
While true, they tend not to bare the costs of the environmental damage, at least when these activities are poorly regulated.
-
You sound like an old man yelling about the TV. LLMs are NOT unhelpful. You'd know this if you actually used them.
In all of your replies, however, you fail to provide a single example. Are they writing code for you, or creating shitty art for you?
-
So these companies are against what you call draconian, but you also disagree with these companies? Everyone here is so fucking short sighted, it's insane to me.
The fact that you can't distinguish between being against something vs. being against a double-standard is insane to me.
-
If not, AI is dead in the US
Technically, everything you write is copyrighted
There are works that are free to use. They could also compensate copyright holders for their work. As they should since they are profiting from it.
-
Come on guys, his company is only worth $157 billion.
Of course he can't pay for content he needs for his automated bullshit machine. He's not made of money!
Company burning stacks of hundred dollar bills to generate power to run hallucination machine worth $157 billion. What a world.
-
To be fair, they’re not wrong. We need to find a legal comprise that satisfies everyone
It's called paying for the content
-
If not, AI is dead in the US
Technically, everything you write is copyrighted
Oh no, how horrible... AI is dead in the US? How shall we live?
/sarcasm -
To be fair, they’re not wrong. We need to find a legal comprise that satisfies everyone
But how will corporations like Disney survive without copywrites?! Won't someone think about the poor corporations?!
/s
-
I don't see how you can write the law such that it allows training ai on copyrighted data without making it possible to train a special llm on a single github instead of the entire universe, and essentially treat it as a full compression of the source.
The outputs are still bound to copyright laws. Tracing pixel per pixel over an artwork doesn't make it immune to copyright laws, maliciously over training gen ai to act like a database and outright copy shouldn't either.
If you have a carbon copy of someone's github, it doesn't matter if you generated it, it's still a copy. Although code is a difficult example since I'm not entirely where the line is for one repo to be different then the other when they are accomplishing the same task.
I always imagined businesses just grabbed the gpl software and would tell their employees to rewrite it but different. Most things I dive down into seem to stem from one algorithm or two from a paper and the rest is fluff.
-
Technological advances are supposed to improve peoples lives. Allow them to work less and enjoy things more often.
It's why we invented a wheel. It's why we invented better weapons to hunt with.
"Tech for techs sake" is enjoying the technology and ignoring its impact on people's lives.
When a society creates a massive sum of information accessible to all, trains new technology on data created by that society, and then a small subset of that society steals and uses that data to profit themselves and themselves alone; I don't know what else you call that but exploitation.
Advances in AI should make our lives better. Not worse. Because of our economic model we have decided that technological advances no longer benefit everyone, but hurt a majority of the population for the profits of a few.
-
Interesting. I hope you don’t mind me distilling that into a few bullet points.
- you don’t like anyone opening your creation up to interpretation.
If Da Vinci felt that the Mona Lisa was a happy painting, would he have a right to stop others from finding her fascinating because her expression is somewhat ambiguous?
If that’s a bit too Minority Report, what about writing about her being sad, like a lot of journalists and critics have?
What about when they earn income by writing about it?
- You don’t think derivative works should compete with the original
Fifty Shades of Grey was born on Twilight fan fiction forums. Erika Mitchell/E.L. James originally used the names Edward and Bella before editing and publishing work was done. There’s a lot of reader overlap—should she be allowed to earn money on this work without Stephanie Meyers’s consent?
This also offers a second example of reinterpreting characters. What right does she have to change Edward from a protective to an openly exploitative individual? Is it okay because she changed the names?
A quote:
I am ok with others making thoughtful stories that don't mess with my characters and some world aspects
If you believe you should have rights in perpetuity to this work and protection from ideas that damage your work’s image, what happens when someone purchases those rights from you, like how musical artists sell the rights to their musical catalogs?
Do those rights still last in perpetuity?
May the individual of corporation who purchased those rights interpret and rule out damaging ideas as they see fit? May they rule out things previously seen as acceptable use by the creator?
If you don’t approve of sales of rights, what about inheritance by estate? What about their rights to further interpretation?
Another quote:
I often independently come to conclusions other logical people may also come to. I wouldn't know whether they have tho because I forge my own path.
If you independently dream up a scientist who creates a humanoid being out of various body parts, brings it to life, and is then horrified by its appearance and the responsibilities he has toward it, doesn’t Mary Shelley still have the rights to the idea? Can’t she shoot down your right to publish, or your right to recognition? What would be your method of proving it was an independent idea?
Does it matter? Should you receive praise for an idea you had that someone else has previously had (200+ years ago!)?
Along the same vein, my use of a smiley face last comment was clearly derivative and meant to imitate you in this moment, but I’m much older than you, and I wrote that way far earlier than you ever did, so can you still claim it was an imitation of your writing style?
Are you familiar with the Library of Babel as a story? As a concept? An author was inspired by Borges and made a website in 2015 that generates random combinations of letters and punctuation on command. You can “search” through the library and it will find places where the algorithm generates, at random and without intention, exactly what you wrote. People can bookmark their best finds. You can find the first page of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone here.
Now, if JK Rowling said she no longer wished for her works to be published, may we use this website to generate her works anew?
And in that vein, what rights would she have to withhold the material? I’m sure she does not like me because I’m not a TERF. But I enjoyed reading the books anyway. She has created a cultural keepsake. What right do we have to continue to enjoy her works despite her? For our children to imagine new adventures?
- You actually do write fanfiction, and use AI to generate content in the style of the original work
That’s just amusing. No notes.
I think the da vinci stuff is a different discussion entirely as it has to do with comments about art and not someone publishing someone else's work for profit without consent while doing whatever they see fit to it. And generally that bullet seems slightly different from what I typed as my topic was theft of an artwork; not interpretation variation of viewers.
I like the 50 shades of grey example and approve of her changing it to be it's own thing rather than either lose the effort put in to the fanfic or try to state it as twilight cannon without consent. Everything stated in that example feels good to me without triggering my immorality sensors.
Sale of rights is nothing I have comments on at this current time.
The babel program is an exotic 'independently coming to something'.
I personally don't write fan fiction at all and it is easy to distinguish my written fiction from things ai's generate (at least with what ai is at this current time).
I believe the key topic you hit is 'independently coming to things' and that that should be encouraged and is moral while using expired copyright law to take someone else's work without their consent is immoral. I do not profess to yet have an ideal system for this in mind; I would focus here though as it has potential to replace the immoral parts of the system with moral parts. So yes independently coming to something actually should receive positive feedback in comparison to purposely copying something the creator does not want copied.
-
It will never be over. We will either be the ones dominant in this area, or it won't be us. If it's not us, well, the consequences could be dire.
I fail to see the significance of not being dominant in bullshit generation, which is OpenAIs specialty.
Non-LLM machine learning is more interesting, but "write me a poem about how you're my loving ai waifu" is just not a strategic resource.
-
The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.
If you actually believe this is still true, I've got a bridge to sell ya'.
This hasn't been true since the '70s, at the latest.
So you believe there is no protection for creators at all and removing copyright will help them?
-
If not, AI is dead in the US
Technically, everything you write is copyrighted
You don't need to say anything else, I'm already happy with that outcome
-
Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don't force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?
Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I'm sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.
Those are problems with the shitty enforcement, and allowing corporations to run rampant.
It needs to be refined, not removed.
Without copyright, you could write a novel, and any corp or person could just start publishing it without paying you a dime.
Just because something isn't protecting well enough doesn't mean you get rid of it.
-
The original 14-year duration w/ an optional renewal is pretty fair IMO. That's long enough that the work has likely lost popularity, but not so long that it's irrelevant. Renewals should be approved based on need (i.e. I'm currently living off the royalties).
The current copyright term in the US is utterly atrocious.
Oh, we should also consider copyright null and void once it's no longer available commercially for a "reasonable" price. As in, if I can't go buy the book or movie today for a similar price to the original launch (or less), then you should lose copyright protections.
Absolutely. Finally a reply with some sense. This would work well, or at least better.
The "copyright doesn't protect anyone so let's remove it" people are just playing into the hands of big corporations.
-
Oh no, how horrible... AI is dead in the US? How shall we live?
/sarcasm -
Well, then we should see their want to change copyright in this way as a good thing. People complain when YouTubers get copyright struck even if their content is fair use or transformative of something else, but then suddenly become all about copyright when AI is mentioned.
The toothpaste is out of the tube. We can either develop it here and outpace our international and ideological competitors, or we can stifle ourselves and fall behind.
The future comes whether you want it to or not.
