OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
This post did not contain any content.
No amigo, it's not fair if you're profiting from it in the long run.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Good. I hope this is what happens.
- LLM algorithms can be maintained and sold to corpos to scrape their own data so they can use them for in house tools, or re-sell them to their own clients.
- Open Source LLMs can be made available for end users to do the same with their own data, or scrape whats available in the public domain for whatever they want so long as they don't re-sell
- Altman can go fuck himself
-
This post did not contain any content.
These fuckers are the first one to send tons of lawyers whenever you republish or use any IP of them. Fuck these idiots.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Do you promise?!?!
-
I understand your frustration, but it's a necessary thing we must do. Because if it's not us, well then it will be someone else and that could literally be devastating.
Who is "us", in this scenario?
-
The billionaires are the ones with the resources to develop this tech. We could nationalize it, but then people would complain about that too for different reasons.
Having unchecked unelected power to allocate resources and change the rules doesn't sit well with most people, I can say.
-
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.”
It's hard to tell where one ends and other's begin isn't it? If a choice is determined by the settings of Neuron 1 and Neuron 1 settings are determined by sensory data from Eye 2 and Eye 2 sensory data is from Object 3 and Object 3 is the way it is because of Person 4...
aka if everything one does is a result of the current state of a vast web of all interrelated events spanning the history of and everything within the universe itself, how can anything ever be caused by someone? How can AnyOne ever create anything? And at least nothing can ever be anyone's fault. Every thing is a combination of everything that results in it being itself.
So maybe, like you say, something separate from this and coming from nothing is problematic. But I think you give humans too much credit. I do not have to transcribe dreams to have my art not a layer built on human creation. Just now my puppy Sun is very wet yet wants to snuggle under the blankets with me and I am having to gently teach them that being wet means they need to dry off first. That data is not from a human source. I transcribe the symbolism of my experience in to this medium of Words that we both share an understanding of, but, beneath the surface, it is not a human creation I am building on.
I believe that humans taking from each other and building on each other leads to some of the greatest and worst things humans have done; but it is not the only way forward.
When getting beyond simple selfpublishing I may be naive because I personally am not drawn by money. Publishing houses as the controllers of the works of individuals and the need to maximize profit for their growth and continued existence is an unknown to me. I have not yet delved in to it nor decided it is the optimal structure; so it is hard for me to speak on. I believe you are correct in pinpointing that my focus is on the purity and sanctimonious treatment of the work instead of profit and market plays. Is the system set up ideally in it's current form? How would you change it?
I would give the person in your bonus material positive feedback and feel that healthiest for their path rather than devalue their creation by comparison.
I think you have a great point on My Little Pony with misrepresentation actually being more acceptable to copyright than exact retelling without the permission of Hasbro. For your curiosity, I have a little free ai art gen somewhere, moderate a forum there, and run a community event there, so it is healthy for me to be aware of what the ai Involved can do. One of my forays involved creating AI Celestia and AI Luna as representations of themselves that can answer questions. So, while different from a fanfic, it is just as hypocritical as you felt and indeed a cause for amusement.
I think you have a good point on media licensing often being a negative and that you are right there is something bad there. Though I also feel the desires of the creator should be respected and that the problem is most likely in the profitdriven incentives of the corporations that gain control of the works of art (and an appreciation for monopolization rather than their wouldbe fans).
-
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
