OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
Thing is that copywrite did serve a purpose and was for like 20 years before disney got it extended to the nth degree. The idea was the authors had a chance to make money but were expected to be prolific enough to have more writings by the time 20 years was over. I would like to see with patents that once you get one you have a limited time to go to market. Maybe 10 years and if you product is ever not available for purchase (at a cost equivalent to the average cost accounted for inflation or something) you lose the patent so others can produce it. So like stop making an attachment for a product and now anyone can.
The problem with these systems is that the more they are bureaucratized and legalized, the more publishing houses and attorney's offices will ultimately dictate the flow of lending and revenue. Ideally, copywrite is as straighforward as submitting a copy of your book to the Library of Congress and getting a big "Don't plagiarize this" stamp on it, such that works can't be lifted straight from one author by another. But because there's all sorts of shades of gray - were Dan Brown and JK Rowling ripping off the core conceits of their works, or were religious murder thrillers and YA wizard high school books simply done to death by the time they went mainstream? - a lot of what constitutes plagarism really boils down to whether or not you can afford extensive litigation.
And that's before you get into the industrialization of ghostwriters that end up supporting "prolific" writers like Danielle Steele or Brian Sanderson or R.L. Stein. There's no real legal protection for staff writers, editors, and the like. The closest we've got is the WGA, and that's more exclusive to Hollywood.
-
This post did not contain any content.
God forbid you offer to PAY for access to works that people create like everyone else has to. University students have to pay out the nose for their books that they "train" on, why can't billion dollar AI companies?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Then perish, OpenAI. If your only innovation is a legal loophole then you did nothing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This sounds like socialism is good for capitalists
-
That's like calling stealing from shops essential for my existence and it would be "over" for me if they stop me. The shit these clowns say is just astounding. It's like they have no morals and no self awareness and awareness for people around them.
It’s like stealing from shops except the shops didn’t lose anything. You’re up a stolen widget, but they have just as many as before.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
"We can't succeed without breaking the law. We can't succeed without operating unethically."
I'm so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it's not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.
Too many people think they're superior. Which is ironic, because they're also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn't need all the unethical things that you're asking for.
Sounds like you are describing the orange baboon in the white house.
-
Cool. What artists?
Any experienced union film director, editor, DOP, writer, sound designer comes to mind (at least where I’m from)
-
So pirating full works suddenly is fair use, or what?
Only if you're doing it to learn, I guess
Wait until all those expensive scientific journals hear about this
-
All you have to do is present credible evidence that these companies are distributing copyrighted works or a direct substitute for those copyrighted works. They have filters to specifically exclude matches though, so it doesn’t really happen.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean's you're just another Organised Crime group.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fair use doesn't mean shit if you're a pirate.
Arr, matey.
-
Agreed... although I would go a step further and say distributing the LLM model or the results of use (even if done without cost) is not fair use, as the training materials weren't licensed.
Ultimatelly it's "Doing Research that advances knowledge for everybody" that should be allowed free use of copyrighted materials, whils activities for direct or indirect commercial gains (included Research whose results are Patented and then licensed for a fee) should not, IMHO.
-
Copyright is a good idea. It was just stretched beyond all reasonable expectations. Copyright should work like Patents. 15 years. You get one, and only one, 15 year extension. At either the 15 or 30 year mark, the work enters the public domain.
This more closely aligns with my perspective, although I also believe no work should be able to be covered by both copyright and patent (e.g. software).
I'm even willing to give longer terms as long as they are limited by the lifespan of the living sentient creator, and not subject to legal games around corporate personhood.
But, I can certainly see the motivations behind eliminating copyright entirely.
-
This post did not contain any content.
As far as the ai industry has already broken copyright laws. It will not be actually intelligent for a long time. Just like crypto this seems like a global scam that has squandered resources for a dream of a free workforce. Instead of working together to try and create an ai there are lots of technology companies doing the same ineffective bull
-
Any experienced union film director, editor, DOP, writer, sound designer comes to mind (at least where I’m from)
Cool. Name one. A specific one that we can directly reference, where they themselves can make that claim. Not a secondary source, but a primary one. And specifically, not the production companies either, keeping in mind that the argument that I'm making is that copyright law, was intended to protect those who control the means of production and the production system itself. Not the artists.
The artists I know, and I know several. They make their money the way almost all people make money, by contracting for their time and services, or through selling tickets and merchandise, and through patreon subscriptions: in other words, the way artists and creatives have always made their money. The "product" in the sense of their music or art being a product, is given away practically for free. In fact, actually for free in the case of the most successful artists I know personally. If they didn't give this "product" of their creativity away for free, they would not be able to survive.
There is practically 0 revenue through copyright. Production companies like Universal make money through copyright. Copyright was also built, and historically based intended for, and is currently used for, the protection of production systems: not artists.
-
Good point. I've never seen it framed this way before. Poignant.
Thanks, heh, I just came back to look at what I'd written again, as it was 6am when I posted that, and sometimes I say some stupid shit when I'm still sleepy. Nice to know that I wasn't spouting nonsense.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What if we had taken the billions of dollars invested in AI and invested that into public education instead?
Imagine the return on investment of the information being used to train actual humans who can reason and don’t lie 60% of the time instead of using it to train a computer that is useless more than it is useful.
