OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
To say you've never gotten a fully correct result on anything has to be hyperbole. These things are tested. We know their hallucination rate, and it's not 100%.
a fully correct result on anything I’ve asked beyond the absolute basics.
Please read the entire comment. Of course it can answer simple stuff. So can a google search. It's overkill for simple shit.
-
I'm all for compensating, but obviously paying for the full work will never work
Then I guess they can't use it... Unless the owner wants to cut them some kind of deal.
-
I don’t think you can separate art and interpretation and critique, but they are often done by different parties. You don’t have to have an opinion on everything. Fair enough. I thought your opinion was that you opposed the misrepresentation of what a piece of art was about, e.g. My Little Pony is about x not y. I merely wanted to know the nature and extent of that opinion.
I agree on the 50 Shades front but am surprised—she took existing characters and wrote a new story around them, which both precludes the original author from ever writing anything in that vein and changes how those characters are seen. The facade of a name change is just that in my opinion.
I’ll admit that I’m confused as to the scenario where you were using MLP AI but it’s not my business! If it was not in a fan fic vein though, I’ll point out that while you take issue with the AI including non-canon material in its MLP training data and thus being non-representative, the owners of the MLP intellectual property would take issue with the use of their material and being too representative. Copyright is not used to preserve sanctity, it is used to monopolize profit opportunity.
The Babel program is merely representative of the actual library of Babel. Read the story. It’s short and it’s thoughtful.
Consent is a valuable concept, not a magical one. If we declare that all creators own rights to their creations for 500 years who cares? Most everything created will be forgotten long before then, people who have never heard of Rachel Ingalls will create countless stories about a mute person meeting a sea creature, and she won’t have a thing to say about it because she’s dead, and she doesn’t seem to have said anything about Del Toro making his movie about the same damn thing. Or perhaps she doesn’t have access to the funds to fight for her claim to the story? Since the other issue is that copyright only protects people and corporations who sue every fractional and imagined impingement upon their property, and it’s not always up to you as the creator what that process looks like. If you get hurt in an accident your insurance company will probably sue whoever hurt you for damages, and likewise if you publish a book through Tantor Media and someone writes a thoughtful continuation you bet Tantor’s not asking for consent.
Look at Star Wars. George Lucas creates a smash hit trilogy. People love it. They write tons of licensed material in-universe. He writes three more movies. They aaaare not a smash hit, but hey. People keep writing more tales in the extended universe. Who does this hurt? Fans get more material, writers make livings, Lucas makes money without having to do more work. But most creators do not make it so easy to create derivative works. Either they create more or their universe and characters die, and for whatever reason, that’s completely up to them. The absurd length of copyright claims ensures the magic their audience found in their work will whither away by the time someone who is willing to fan the flame is legally permitted to do so. Firefly will never resolve. Scavengers Reign is over, and if we catch you trying to finish the story you’ll face jail time. Westworld isn’t just unfinished, it’s functionally gone. It has been taken away. And those works were genuinely gargantuan undertakings and there is no way that was the desire of everyone involved.
- Nothing comes to be something from nothing. Stephen King’s It has many things in common such as the seemingly sentient balloon with Ray Bradbury’s Something This Way Wicked Comes, who took its title from Macbeth, and says he was only really convinced to write it by his friend Gene Kelly—I do not think there is something inherently immoral about this iterative process of inspiration, creation, interpretation, amalgamation and recreation. I do think there is something inherently immoral about taking claiming “the buck stops here” and arguing for the total independence of your own work. It’s all borrowed from our experiences, and our experiences are borrowed from the universe, and when we die no one should really give a shit about whether or not we would consent to something if we were, you know, not dead. Stephen King may have a legal claim to It but it is not his work alone. Maybe a strong case for outsider art being unique could convince me otherwise but I do not believe we can come to a point of finality where, after we and everyone we've learned from and everyone who has fed us, led us, derided and inspired us has worked on something, after we've taken our materials from the planet and our inspiration from nature, we can say “it’s finished, and no one else may touch it.”
I believe if I do not publish my main book, it will not 'happen to be duplicated'. And then technology and lifestyle will evolve beyond our current age and, the farther time goes and more alien reality becomes compared to now, the less likely accidental duplication becomes until becoming practically impossible (tho not accounting for the evolution of ai). And yes I DO think the author should be able to say 'its finished and no one else may touch it' and, if they have, it is disrespectful to do otherwise.
-
a fully correct result on anything I’ve asked beyond the absolute basics.
Please read the entire comment. Of course it can answer simple stuff. So can a google search. It's overkill for simple shit.
Yeah, I read the entire comment and the key word was "anything", which as you just admitted was in fact hyperbole. As I said it was.
It's actually not overkill, because the way it responds (even for simple requests) can be tailored to help you understand things better. I've thrown everything at from simple stuff to complex stuff, and it does a really good job 90% of the time.
-
I believe that the protection copyright provides is proportionate to how much you can spend on lawyers. So, no protection for the smallest creators, and little protection for smaller creators against larger corporations.
I support extreme copyright reform, though I doubt it should be completely removed.
Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.
I'm not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.
Copyright IS about protecting creators; we're just still letting corporations run the show.
-
This post did not contain any content.
But if you stop me from criming, how will I get better at crime!?!
-
Yeah, I read the entire comment and the key word was "anything", which as you just admitted was in fact hyperbole. As I said it was.
It's actually not overkill, because the way it responds (even for simple requests) can be tailored to help you understand things better. I've thrown everything at from simple stuff to complex stuff, and it does a really good job 90% of the time.
The entire phrase I used was "anything beyond the absolute basics". Meaning it only works on basic things. Just because you fixated on a word doesn't mean it was "key".
I've had to fix literally every piece of code, scripting, email, or whatever else I've tried to use it for. The only time it's moderately successful is if I give it very explicit instructions on information I need from a document or website and it can accomplish about as much as hitting ctrl+F and doing a search, and even then it throws in random bullshit from the internet if it can't find all the information I asked for. Even when I explicitly tell it to stick to the source. If you have some examples of how you're using it effectively I'd love to hear them because it's been absolute trash for me.
-
The AI is not the problem in this case. The economic model is. It is not an economic model suitable for the advancement of technology.
Yes. That's my point. But people that hate AI hate it because of how it is being used under capitalism. For a lot of people "it is easier image the end of the world than the end of capitalism". Hence why they hate AI. They don't hate it inherently.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Time to sail the high seas.
-
This post did not contain any content.
To be fair copyright is a disease. But then so is billionaires, capitalism, business, etc.
I mean, if there's a war, and you shoot somebody, does that make you bad?
Yes and no.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Maybe as a consumer product but governments will still want it
-
This post did not contain any content.
I dont wanna be mean but I always thought this guy had a weird face
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think the answer is there just do what deepseek did.
-
Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.
I'm not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.
Copyright IS about protecting creators; we're just still letting corporations run the show.
Copyright IS about protecting creators
No, it isn't. The intent WAS to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.
-
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.
First of all, copying or modifying somebody else's work without their permission isn't theft. Information cannot be owned in the way a physical object can be, as access to information is nonexclusive, meaning any number of people can use the same piece of information without impeding each other. Contrast that with physical objects, say a car. If I'm using your car, you can't use it, because I'm doing so. If I copy your book, you still have the original. Hence its not theft.
Copyright is a legal privilege governments grant to artists, so that the artists can be paid for their work. (In practice, it mostly protects big publishers and a few wealthy artists. Most artists can't afford to the legal battle necessary to get the state to actually enforce the legal privilege they've been granted).
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.
You are conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is claiming that you created the works of somebody else. This is morally wrong, regardless of whether you have the consent of the original author. By claiming that you created something you didn't, you are lying to your audience. (In fact, even disguising your earlier work as new is considered plagiarism). The plagiarist is not a thief, they're a liar. When you put somebody's work into an LLM, and claim you created the output, you have committed plagiarism. Unless you credit every work used in the training of said LLM.
when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.
You do know that Luigi Mangione plead not guilty to the charges? And yet you use his name as a euphemism for murder. You can't own information, copying it is not stealing.
-
That's a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you're the arsehole.
I wonder if there's some validity to what OpenAI is saying though (but I certainly don't completely agree with them).
If the US makes it too costly to train AI models, then maybe China will relax any copyright laws so that Chinese AI models can be trained quickly and cheaply. This might result in China developing better AI models than the US.
Maybe the US should require AI companies to pay a large chunk of their profits to copyright holders. So copyright holders would be compensated, but an AI company would only have to pay if they generate profits.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable in this field will tell me I'm totally wrong.
-
Then I guess they can't use it... Unless the owner wants to cut them some kind of deal.
We'll see how it turns out, but yea they're in big trouble
-
Copyright IS about protecting creators
No, it isn't. The intent WAS to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.
If that were true, removing copyright entirely would benefit society.
Just because it's been corrupted doesn't mean the intent and purpose isn't still there.
It's absurd that we essentially agree on what needs to happen, but you're stuck on the idea copyright currently has no benefit to anyone but big business.
-
I don't believe there's a future in AI at all.
