OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
Let's say I write a book.
If I don't want people copying it, people shouldn't be copying it. I don't care if it's been 500 years. It's my book.
This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent. Just my perspective but why should artists lose control of their own creations at all? The problem in copyright is tech companies doing patent thickets; not artists.
Even artistic creations held by corporations. Waiting for Marvel stuff to hit public domain to publish a bunch of Marvel novels since they can't protect their creations any more? Why is that acceptable? If someone creates something and doesn't want it stolen, I don't give a fuck what the law says, stealing it is theft. The thief should instead be using Marvel stuff as inspiration as they make their own universe; not just waiting an amount of time before stealing someone else's creation without consent. It isn't holding progress back at all to make novel artistic creations instead of steal others. Art = very different from tech.
when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi'd; no matter how long ago it came out.
What is really novel in art is very hard to define. Art is based on artists inspiring each other, reacting to each other, borrowing from each other, evolving other artists's ideas, actualizing and restructuring ideas. That's why history of art is so fun and interesting.
-
And as the rest of the conversation points out, if it's so important that for profit corporations can ignore copyright law, there is no justifying reason for the same laws to apply to any other content creators or consumers. Corporations are the reason copyright law is so draconic and stiffles innovation on established ideas, so to unironically say it makes their business model unsustainable is just rich.
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.
-
It's not an opposition to tech. It's an opposition to billionaires changing the rules whenever it benefits them, while the rest has to just sit with it.
-
Cry about it. Crypto bros make the same excuses to this day prove your bullshit works before you start shoving it in my face. And yes, LLMs are really unhelpful. There's extremely little value you can get out of them (outside of generating text that looks like a human wrote it which is what they are designed to do) unless you are a proper moron.
-
What is really novel in art is very hard to define. Art is based on artists inspiring each other, reacting to each other, borrowing from each other, evolving other artists's ideas, actualizing and restructuring ideas. That's why history of art is so fun and interesting.
your art may be taken from others. mine is mostly based on dreams.
-
I don't want AI to flourish.
-
If giant megacorporations can benefit by ignoring copyright, us mortals should be able to as well.
Until then, you have the public domain to train on. If you don't want AI to talk like the 1920s, you shouldn't have extended copyright and robbed society of a robust public domain.
I'm somewhat ok with AI talking like the 1920s.
"Babe, I'm on the nut. I'm behind the eight ball. I'm one of the hatchetmen on this box job, and it's giving me the heebie-jeebies. These mugs are saying my cut is twenty large. But if we end up squirting metal, this ain't gonna be no three-spot. The tin men are gonna throw me in the big house until the big sleep."
-
Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can't have both.
-
your art may be taken from others. mine is mostly based on dreams.
Must suck being Shakespear for sure. Not even dreams are original though, they're influenced by what you see in reality and by mental structures common to all people - motives in dreams repeat across nations and ages. You can be authentic, but it's arguablx impossible to be absolutely original. Do your art for yourself and others who appreciate it, but don't gatekeep ideas.
-
Must suck being Shakespear for sure. Not even dreams are original though, they're influenced by what you see in reality and by mental structures common to all people - motives in dreams repeat across nations and ages. You can be authentic, but it's arguablx impossible to be absolutely original. Do your art for yourself and others who appreciate it, but don't gatekeep ideas.
Steal away then! You've clearly convinced yourself it is the only way to create things.
Glad you can't see any of my things
-
The issue isn't with AI, it's with how companies position it. When they claim it'll do everything and solve all your issues and then it struggles with some tasks a 10 year old could do, it creates a very negative image.
It also doesn't help that they hallucinate with a lot of confidence and people use them as a solution, not as a tool - meaning they blindly accept the first answer that came out.
If the creators of models made more reasonable claims and the models were generally able to convey their confidence in the answers they gave maybe the reception wouldn't be so cold. But then there wouldn't be hype and AI wouldn't be actively shoved into everything.
-
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.
They don't want to change the law, they just want an exemption for themselves. Rules for thee, not for me.
-
This post did not contain any content.
fucking thank goodness
-
The issue isn't with AI, it's with how companies position it. When they claim it'll do everything and solve all your issues and then it struggles with some tasks a 10 year old could do, it creates a very negative image.
It also doesn't help that they hallucinate with a lot of confidence and people use them as a solution, not as a tool - meaning they blindly accept the first answer that came out.
If the creators of models made more reasonable claims and the models were generally able to convey their confidence in the answers they gave maybe the reception wouldn't be so cold. But then there wouldn't be hype and AI wouldn't be actively shoved into everything.
I disagree with your take. I've found it extremely helpful in my life. I find using it and learning with it to be an enriching experience. I find following it's development and seeing it grow to be exciting. I see the possibilities of all the positive things it could do for the future of humanity.
I don't think a 10 year old could explain subatomic particles and the fundamental forces of the universe to me. I don't think they could refresh my memory of how to do geometry to help my son with his homework. I don't think a 10 year old could write a program for me to keep track of all the ebooks I have saved to my hard drive.
It's fairly obvious what's happening here. A bunch of people complaining about that newfangled thing they don't understand or see the full potential of, just like for every new technology that has ever emerged. The automobile would never take off. Humans would never fly. TV was a fad. The Internet wouldn't flourish. Rinse and repeat.
-
They don't want to change the law, they just want an exemption for themselves. Rules for thee, not for me.
-
Steal away then! You've clearly convinced yourself it is the only way to create things.
Glad you can't see any of my things
Are you sure you have a right to be making this argument? Lots of corporations and individuals have already argued in favor of longer copyright duration.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Vote pirate party.
-
Are you sure you have a right to be making this argument? Lots of corporations and individuals have already argued in favor of longer copyright duration.
cute
And yes. Yes I do. 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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What's wrong with the sentiment expressed in the headline? AI training is not and should not be considered fair use. Also, copyright laws are broken in the west, more so in the east.
We need a global reform of copyright. Where copyrights can (and must) be shared among all creators credited on a work. The copyright must be held by actual people, not corporations (or any other collective entity), and the copyright ends after 30 years or when the all rights holders die, whichever happens first. That copyright should start at the date of initial publication. The copyright should be nontransferable but it should be able to be licensed to any other entity only with a majority consent of all rights holders. At the expiration of the copyright the work in question should immediately enter the public domain.
And fair use should be treated similarly to how it is in the west, where it's decided on a case-by-case basis, but context and profit motive matter.
-
What's wrong with the sentiment expressed in the headline? AI training is not and should not be considered fair use. Also, copyright laws are broken in the west, more so in the east.
We need a global reform of copyright. Where copyrights can (and must) be shared among all creators credited on a work. The copyright must be held by actual people, not corporations (or any other collective entity), and the copyright ends after 30 years or when the all rights holders die, whichever happens first. That copyright should start at the date of initial publication. The copyright should be nontransferable but it should be able to be licensed to any other entity only with a majority consent of all rights holders. At the expiration of the copyright the work in question should immediately enter the public domain.
And fair use should be treated similarly to how it is in the west, where it's decided on a case-by-case basis, but context and profit motive matter.
Why 30 years, why not 10?
