p3x.deOpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
cyranoarstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/03/openai-urge…
490 Comments
Comments from other communities
If training your AI on copyrighted material is fair use then you shouldn't be able to charge for your service.
train on media that is publicly owned. if there isnt enough of this, then join the fight to end the ridiculous timeframe that material remains copyrighted.
DojanOf course it's not fucking fair use. Libraries also have to pay for the materials they let you borrow. Any corporation that thinks it's okay to steal and otherwise break the law should just be fucking destroyed. The shit these corporations get away with would put a regular person in jail for several lifetimes, but these clonkers just get a smack on the wrist. Fucking end them!
magnetosphere
Endymion_MallornOn one hand, it's a fight against copywrong, which makes me happy. On the other hand, it's an end to the ongoing torrent of AI slop, which also makes me happy.
Help, I don't know which side is worse!
I think the end of the torrent of ai slop is the better thing at the moment. I don't hate the underlying concept behind copyright, protect the people who create a thing for a limited amount of time. The problem is when those limits are lobbied to be extended over and over and the laws are used as a bludgeon by corporations against individuals.
If I were to fix copyright to something equitable:
Copyrights must be held by a singular person, no corporations, no estates, no organizations, none of that. If an elderly creator dies while in control of a copyright then it goes to next of kin until it expires. If corporations want protection for logos and corporate designs, that's what a trademark is for.
copyrights last for 30 years, that's plenty of time to profit off of a work, but not so long that multiple generations lose out on the creative potential of that work being in the societal consciousness.
Copyright damages cannot be calculated by some theoretical loss of profits to the copyrifht holder. The damages are some significant portion of revenue made by the offending party.
Copyright (or IP law more broadly) does a variety of things, good and bad. I’d like to see us keep the good and ditch the bad.
The good:
- Accurate attribution. It’s important to know who actually came up with something, so you can continue the conversation with them.
- Faithful replication. It’s important to know what the canonical version of a thing looks like, so you can identify what has changed about any derivatives.
Until AI, these were pretty trivial concerns.
You could easily Google something to find out who made it. And computers produce exact copies by default, so how likely are you to run into a malformed approximation of the original thing?
But now, these are both under serious threat.
The bad:
- Keeping culture and knowledge away from people who could do something with it, until they pay up.
- Preventing interoperability.
- Coercing authors into signing over the rights to their concepts, so they can’t continue working on them unless it’s profitable for the rights-holders.
You’ll notice I left out the most obvious thing: “It gives creators a legal monopoly to prevent them getting out-competed by wealthy vulture corporations copying them.”
That’s cuz as long as they can pre-emptively force creators to sign over the rights, copyright doesn’t protect creators — it does the opposite.
I think AI only gets rid of the good parts of copyright, while doing nearly nothing about the bad parts.
We desperately need copyright reform. But it should not be rewritten by big AI interests.
Dasus
Nobody cares if a truck killed sam the parasite altman... Jfc daily fucking fake news article over this clown...
LexamWhat a bunch of whiny children these CEOs are. It reminds me of screaming children at the grocery store who didn't get something they wanted.
And yet, in all the CEO books, they talk about disruptive innovation, and how a “change in the rules” creates new opportunities.
Sam Altman is nothing more than a copyright violator (the courts like the term pirate) who should owe billions, if not trillions in legal penalties.
I have a better idea let's sue them collectively for trillions in damages. Let's kill AI entirely. We need to be fixing our climate not fulfilling the dreams of scifi nerds.
We've also already gotten some benefit for truely useful, non-copyright infringing AI (generally the kinds used by scientists evaluating big data sets like protein folding and finding exoplanets). None of those AIs rely on stolen art or stolen copyrighted material. But they have benefited somewhat from the pursuit of AI processing hardware. So even if you are pro-AI where it has shown any real value as a tool, you still don't need the copyright infringement. Let's kill OpenAI, and other LLMs that stole to get where they are. The actually useful AI probably won't go anywhere, even if the companies pushing their AI the most right now all go under.
Brave Little Hitachi WandWhat is it in a man's soul that can make it so their eyes never quite match the look on their face?
Very rhetorical btw it's sociopathy
Lucy :3I'm fine with this as long as everyone else gets the same rights and piracy stops being a crime. I'm so tired of corporation and rich people getting away with stuff that results in hefty fines or even prison for the common person.
odd
THCDentonHe's honestly not wrong
Frankly, efforts should be directed toward evolving more efficient and less error prone models, not seeking out the cheapest training material and hording it
People are so blindly angry with AI tech that they're willing to double-down on our worst corporate entitlement programs just to see Altman cry a little, and that makes me angrier than seeing a wrong AI response get passed around like gospel.
TrickDacySo the software cannot improve making connections between information, only just be fed more data.. I'm ignorant about how this works but that somewhat sounds like giving up.
That's all LLMs could ever do. This was never the path to generalized AI in the colloquial sense.
The software isn't doing nothing. What it does do, I would assume, could be better...
I don't think it is fair to say that. LLMs in the current form, or by themselves cannot do better. Does not mean, that this basis can be further evolved to do better. But that requires good research, and a lot of open source to cross check and evolve. There is no "business case" in that. Hoarding resources and knowledge and keeping other people from it on the other hand, is something the MBAs understand.
Walk_blesseD
Time to sail the high seas.
Maybe as a consumer product but governments will still want it
fucking thank goodness
Idk about that, but openai is probably over
They are US based right?
So they literally do whatever they want anyway regardless of what any law might say.
But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.
That's because the elites don't want you to think for yourself, and instead are designing tools that will tell you what to think.
Now you get why we were all told to hate AI. It's a patriot act for copywrite and IP laws. We should be able too. But that isn't where our discussions were steered was it
It's *copyright*, not *copywrite*---you know, the right to copy. Copywriting is what ad people do. And what does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act?
This is how you know I'm not an AI but instead an idiot that uses AI
Man, what if we abolished copyright, but also banned gen AI completely. I think that would be the funniest answer.
We don't make laws. They do and they won't abolish something that's set up for them. But we have a choice to listen for now. What if we do whatever we wanted and we didn't make it easy for them to enforce rules that don't benefit us. I remember underground comics back in the day that said fuck Disney and drew Mickey smoking crack because fuck Disney. I remember downloading some of the best music on Napster because it was not really protected songs yet that some kid remixes into a whole new song. Like Slipknot and Britney Spears.
Only answer that would make me happy
True!
you can, however, go to your local library and read any book ever written for free
Unless it's deemed a "bad" one by your local klanned karenhood and removed from the library for being tOo WoKe
Yoink
i almost wrote that caveat, but decided to leave it low hanging….
as far as i know, though, that only applies to children’s books at this point…
So can the AI
Damn! Which library are you going to?!
F in chat for the library of Alexandria.
if the library doesn’t have a book, they will order it from another library….
every american library…
Mine doesn't...
are you sure? have you actually tried? or maybe ask a librarian?
most public libraries are part of a network of libraries… and a lot of their services aren’t immediately obvious….
also, all libraries have computers and free internet access…
i’d like to ask what library in particular, but you probably don’t want to dox yourself like that….
My city library will pull from nearby libraries for a fee (like $2/work I think?), or I can use my card at those same libraries for free (just need to return to the same library), but AFAIK they don't pull from anything beyond that. We're a relatively small city (like 30-40k people), so maybe things are different downtown.
University libraries, however, will pull from pretty much everywhere, and they have access to a ton of online academic resources.
Interlibrary Loan isn't available everywhere (at least back when I used to work at a library ~10 years ago it wasn't). If it is, it often has an associated fee (usually at least shipping fees, sometimes an additional service fee). I think the common exception to that is public university libraries.
What if it's out of print?
i am guilty of hyperbole… i should’ve qualified my infinitives with “just about” and such….
i am more sorry about my inaccuracy than anyone has ever felt sorry about anything
I'm fine with this. "We can't succeed without breaking the law" isn't much of an argument.
Do I think the current copyright laws around the world are fine? No, far from it.
But why do they merit an exception to the rules that will make them billions, but the rest of us can be prosecuted in severe and dramatic fashion for much less. Try letting the RIAA know you have a song you've downloaded on your PC that you didn't pay for - tell them it's for "research and training purposes", just like AI uses stuff it didn't pay for - and see what I mean by severe and dramatic.
It should not be one rule for the rich guys to get even richer and the rest of us can eat dirt.
Figure out how to fix the laws in a way that they're fair for everyone, including figuring out a way to compensate the people whose IP you've been stealing.
Until then, deal with the same legal landscape as everyone else. Boo hoo
I also think it's really rich that at the same time they're whining about copyright they're trying to go private. I feel like the 'Open' part of OpenAI is the only thing that could possibly begin to offset their rampant theft and even then they're not nearly open enough.
They are not releasing anything of value in open source recently.
Sam altman said they were on the wrong side of history about this when deepseek released.
They are not open anymore I want that to be clear. They decided to stop releasing open source because 💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵.
So yeah I can have huge fines for downloading copyrighted material where I live, and they get to make money out of that same material without even releasing anything open source?
Fuck no.
Absolutely agreed - and to make matters worse, their clearly stated goals ultimately amount to replacing all of us with their AI. This deal just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀🌌
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.
Not only that, but their business model doesn't hold up if they were required to provide their model weights for free because the material that went into it was "free".
There's also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn't be a business.
No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it's the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.
The entire internet is built on free things.
Just saying.
Doesn't mean that businesses should allowed to be.
Businesses relying on free things. Logging, mining, ranching, and oil come to mind. Extracting free resources of the land belonging to the public, destroying those public lands and selling those resources back to the public at an exorbitant markup.
You misspelled capitalism.
Unregulated capitalism. That’s why people in dominant market positions want less regulation.
Entrenched companies often want more regulation to prevent startup competition. Pulling the ladder up behind them.
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.
Was about to post the same thing
While true, they tend not to bare the costs of the environmental damage, at least when these activities are poorly regulated.
Deleted by author
If basic economics get you upset, then alright.
Bye o/
Agribusiness in shambles after draining the water table (it is still free)
even the top phds can learn things off the amount of books that openai could easily purchase, assuming they can convince a judge that if the works aren't pirated the "learning" is fair use. however, they're all pirating and then regurgitating the works which wouldn't really be legal even if a human did it.
also, they can't really say how they need fair use and open standards and shit and in the next breathe be begging trump to ban chinese models. the cool thing about allowing china to have global influence is that they will start to respect IP more... or the US can just copy their shit until they do.
imo that would have been the play against tik tok etc. just straight up we will not protect the IP of your company (as in technical IP not logo, etc.) until you do the same. even if it never happens, we could at least have a direct tik tok knock off and it could "compete" for american eyes rather than some blanket ban bullshit.
Interesting copyright question: if I own a copy of a book, can I feed it to a local AI installation for personal use?
Can a library train a local AI installation on everything it has and then allow use of that on their library computers? <— this one could breathe new life into libraries
First off, I'm by far no lawyer, but it was covered in a couple classes.
According to law as I know it, question 1 yes if there is no encryption, and question 2 no.
In reality, if you keep it for personal use, artists don't care. A library however, isn't personal use and they have to jump through more hoops than a circus especially when it comes to digital media.
But you raise a great point! I'd love to see a law library train AI for in-house use and test the system!
This particular vein of "pro-copyright" thought continuously baffles me. Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
Its totally valid to hate these AI companies. But its absolutely just industry propaganda to think that copyright was protecting your data on your behalf
You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.
What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn't take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don't need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.
That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don't get to say no.
https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf
This research paper from Rufus Pollock in 2009 suggests that the optimal timeframe for copyright is 15 years. I've been referencing this for, well, 16 years now, a year longer than the optimum copyright range. If I recall correctly I first saw this referenced by Mike Masnick of techdirt.
Gatekeeping absolutely was the intention of copyright, not to provide artists with income.
By gatekeeping I mean the use of digital methods to verify or restrict use of purchased copyright material after a sale such as Digital rights management, encryption such as CSS/AACS/HDCP, or obfuscation.
The whole "you didn't buy a copy, you bought a license" BS undermines what copyright was supposed to be IMO.
Copyright does not give the holder control over every "use", especially something as vague as "using it to undermine their skillset".
Copyright gives the rights holder a limited monopoly on three activities: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly.
Not all uses involve making a copy, derivative, or performance.
Bingo. I was being more general in my response, but that is the more technical way of putting it.
Wrong in all points.
Copyright has paid artists (though maybe not enough). Copyright was intended to do that (though maybe not that alone). Copyright does currently pay artists (maybe not in your country, I don't know that).
No, actually, I'm not at all. In-fact, I'm totally right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
Copyright originated create a monopoly to protect printers, not artists, to create a monopoly around a means of distribution.
How many artists do you know? You must know a few. How many of them have received any income through copyright. I dare you, to in good faith, try and identify even one individual you personally know, engaged in creative work, who makes any meaningful amount of money through copyright.
I know several artists living off of selling their copyrighted work, and no one in the history of the Internet has ever watched a 55 minute YouTube video someone linked to support their argument.
Cool. What artist?
Edit because I didn't read the second half of your comment. If you are too up-your-own ass and anti-intellectual to educate yourself on this matter, maybe just don't have an opinion.
You forgot to link a legitimate source.
A lecture from a professional free software developer and activist whose focus is the legal history and relevance of copyright isn't a legitimate source? His website: https://questioncopyright.org/promise/index.html
The anti-intelectualism of the modern era baffles me.
Also, he's on the fediverse!
kfogel.org
@kfogel@kfogel.org
YouTube is not a legitimate source. The prof is fine but video only links are for the semi literate. It is frankly rude to post a minor comment and expect people to endure a video when a decent reader can absorb the main points from text in 20 seconds.
I know quite a few people who rely on royalties for a good chunk of their income. That includes musicians, visual artists and film workers.
Saying it doesn’t exist seems very ignorant.
Cool. What artists?
Any experienced union film director, editor, DOP, writer, sound designer comes to mind (at least where I’m from)
No, it means that copyrights should not exist in the first place.
I mean, if they are allowed to go forward then we should be allowed to freely pirate as well.
In the end, we're just training some non-artifical intelligence.
Yeah, you can train your own neural network on pirated content, all right, but you better not enjoy that content at the same time or have any feelings while watching it, because that's not covered by "training".
Don't worry: the law will be very carefully crafted so that it will be legal only if they do it, not us.
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.
Either we can now have full authority to do anything we want with copyright, or the companies have to have to abide the same rules the plebs and serfs have to and only take from media a century ago, or stuff that fell through the cracks like Night of the Living Dead.
Copyright has always been a farce and a lie for the corporations, so it's nothing new that its "Do as I say, not as I do."
I'd settle for shortening the term of copyright.
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."
So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is "fair use", or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.
Fine by me. Can it be over today?
I'll get the champagne for us and tissues for Sam.
Shit, save your $$$ and get some GPUs since the market would crash.
Unfortunately, the tissues have a 1000% tarrif. Perhaps sandpaper will do?
I'll bring the meth
Training that AI is absolutely fair use.
Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.
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.
"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.
these kinds of asshats are all the same. Only difference is the size of the hat.
TLDR: "we should be able to steal other people's work, or we'll go crying to daddy Trump. But DeepSeek shouldn't be able to steal from the stuff we stole, because China and open source"
Why does Sam have such a punchable face?
all billionaires do
let's have a tier list of billionaires by face punchability.
my top 3:
#1 Elon Musk
#2 Mark Zuckerberg
#3 Jeff Bezos
I hate zuckerburg as much as anyone, but I find his face surprisingly low on the punchability index. Musk and Bezos at 1 and 2 for me.
Zuck is, however, at the top of the list for lizard person index.
Bezos has such a shit-eating grin. Really makes him infinitely more punchable
oh zuck is such a lizard-person.
Bezos' entire personality gets me fuming; I would want to punch him even if he weren't a billionaire. (Remember that time he talked over William Shatner touchdown?)
Musk honestly looks ok to me personally, I guess the gender-affirming surgeries went well. But the thought of what's going on behind his eyes makes me want to punch him in the face real bad.
Zuckerpunch
Yeah but his especially, it's so squishy.
Keep your filthy paws away from my boy George Lucas
Cosmic justice?
Where are the copyright lawsuits by Nintendo and Disney when you need them lol
Look we may have driven Aaron Swartz to suicide for doing basically the same thing on a smaller scale, but dammit we are getting very rich of this. And, if we are getting rich, then it is okay to break the law while actively fucking over actually creative people. Trust us. We are tech bros and we know what is best for you is for us to become incredibly rich and out of touch. You need us.
In case anyone is unfamiliar, Aaron Swartz downloaded a bunch of academic journals from JSTOR. This wasn't for training AI, though. Swartz was an advocate for open access to scientific knowledge. Many papers are "open access" and yet are not readily available to the public.
Much of what he downloaded was open-access, and he had legitimate access to the system via his university affiliation. The entire case was a sham. They charged him with wire fraud, unauthorized access to a computer system, breaking and entering, and a host of other trumped-up charges, because he...opened an unlocked closet door and used an ethernet jack from there. The fucking Secret Service was involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosecution
Nothing Swartz did is anywhere close to the abuse by OpenAI, Meta, etc., who openly admit they pirated all their shit.
You're correct that their piracy was on a much more egregious scale than what Aaron did, but they don't openly admit to their piracy. Meta just argued that it isn't piracy because they didn't seed.
Edit: to be clear. I don't think that Aaron Swartz did anything wrong. Unlike the chatGPT, meta, etc.
Slave owners might go broke after abolition? 😂
I'm going to have to remember this
At the end of the day the fact that openai lost their collective shit when a Chinese company used their data and model to make their own more efficient model is all the proof I need they don't care about being fair or equitable when they get mad at people doing the exact thing they did and would aggressively oppose others using their own work to advance their own.
They’re all motivated by greed.
That sounds like a you problem.
"Our business is so bad and barely viable that it can only survive if you allow us to be overtly unethical", great pitch guys.
I mean that's like arguing "our economy is based on slave plantations! If you abolish the practice, you'll destroy our nation!"
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.
If artificial intelligence can be trained on stolen information, then so should be "natural" intelligence.
Oh, wait. One is owned by oligarchs raking in billions, the other just serves the plebs.
couldnt' have said it better...the irony...
Business that stole everyone's information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.
Yeah I'll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared... Wankers.
Why training openai with literally millions of copyrighted works is fair use, but me downloading an episode of a series not available in any platform means years of prison?
Have you thought about incorporating yourself into a company? Apparently that solves all legal problems.
Technically they get you for 'sharing' as downloading is legal in most places, but I get what you mean.
Sounds like another way of saying "there actually isn't a profitable business in this."
But since we live in crazy world, once he gets his exemption to copyright laws for AI, someone needs to come up with a good self hosted AI toolset that makes it legal for the average person to pirate stuff at scale as well.
I mean, pirating media at scale for your own consumption can be considered "training of a neural network" as well..
First step, be a business. Second step, accept Trump's dick in your ass. Congratulations, here's your "get out of jail free" card.
Also, pirating media at scale isn't that hard to do right now anyway lol
The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.
Truly open is the only way LLMs make sense.
They're using us and our content openly. The relationship should be reciprocal. Now, they need to somehow keep the servers running.
Perhaps a SETI like model?
I mean, make em non profit (or not for profit) and perfecly good with that. Also open source the model so I can run it on my own hardware if I want to.
Open AI kind of is a nonprofit. It's a nonprofit entity owned by a for profit entity, which is fucky and defeats the purpose, but that's an argument you'll see people make.
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 is basically a veiled admission that OpenAI are falling behind in the very arms race they started. Good, fuck Altman. We need less ultra-corpo tech bro bullshit in prevailing technology.
If training an ai on copyrighted material is fair use, then piracy is archiving
I'm fine with that haha
If everyone can 'train' themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.''
Otherwise, get fucked.
Sounds fair, shut it down.
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.
But you have to pay humans, and give them bathroom breaks, and allow them time off work to spend with their loved ones. Where's the profit in that? Surely it's more clever and efficient to shovel time and money into replacing something that will never be able to practically develop beyond current human understanding. After all, we're living in the golden age of humanity and history has ended! No new knowledge will ever be made so let's just make machines that regurgitate our infallible and complete knowledge.
“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”
I have conflicting feelings about this whole thing. If you are selling the result of training like OpenAI does (and every other company), then I feel like it’s absolutely and clearly not fair use. It’s just theft with extra steps.
On the other hand, what about open source projects and individuals who aren’t selling or competing with the owners of the training material? I feel like that would be fair use.
What keeps me up at night is if training is never fair use, then the natural result is that AI becomes monopolized by big companies with deep pockets who can pay for an infinite amount of random content licensing, and then we are all forever at their mercy for this entire branch of technology.
The practical, socioeconomic, and ethical considerations are really complex, but all I ever see discussed are these hard-line binary stances that would only have awful corporate-empowering consequences, either because they can steal content freely or because they are the only ones that will have the resources to control the technology.
Japan already passed a law that explicitly allows training on copyrighted material. And many other countries just wouldn’t care. So if it becomes a real problem the companies will just move.
I think they need to figure out a middle ground where we can extract value from the for profit AI companies but not actually restrict the competition.
Whoever brings Aaron Swartz back gets to violate all the copyright laws
Aaron Swartz was 100% opposed to all copyright laws, you remember that yah?
Yes, and he killed himself after the FBI was throwing the book at him for doing exactly what these AI assholes are doing without repercussion
And for some reason suddenly everyone leaps back to the side of the FBI and copyright because it's a meme to hate on LLMs.
It's almost like people don't have real convictions.
You can't be Team Aaron when it's popular and then Team Copyright Maximalist when the winds change and it's time to hate on LLMs or diffusion models.
I'm not just a copyright abolitionnist, I also abhor all intellectual property. Yes, even trademsrk
Me too. I fundamentally oppose the idea that ideas can be owned, even by oneself.
But a weird cult has developed around copyright where people think they are on the side of the little guy by defending copyright.
It's classic false consciousness of the temporarily embarrassed billionaire, except for the benefit of the blood 🐭 mouse in this case
And he also said "child pornography is not necessarily abuse."
https://web.archive.org/web/20130116210225/http://bits.are.notabug.com/
Big yikes from me whenever I see him venerated.
No amigo, it's not fair if you're profiting from it in the long run.
For Sam:
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.
Fuck these psychos. They should pay the copyright they stole with the billions they already made. Governments should protect people, MDF
Then let it be over then.
If AI gets to use copyrighted material for free and makes a profit off of the results, that means piracy is 1000% Legal.
Excuse me while I go and download a car!!
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.
No, stop! You wouldn't!
I would, and a house. I'm a menace!
DAMMIT ALL TO HELL!
...This must be DEI's fault.
I can tell you it's not. I downloaded all the DEI documents and read them, sitting in my new house. :)
Thank a lot Obama
I also downloaded Obama as well. Now I'm a Super Menace.
So Deepmind is good to train on your models then right?
Oh, so now you're just going to surrender our precious natural resources to the Imperialist Chinese?!
Guys, I think we've got a Wumao over here. Someone get what's left of the FBI to arrest him and show his ass the fucking door.
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!
What is the charge, officer? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?
"How are we supposed to win the race if we can't cheat?!"
Depends on if you consider teaching "cheating." Current AI is just learning material, similar to a human but at much faster rates and with a larger brain. Someone IS going to develop this tech. If you pay attention to the space at all, you'd know how rapidly it is developing and how much the competition in the space is heating up internationally. The East tends to have much more of a feeling of responsibility to the state, so if the state uses "their stuff" to train this extraordinarily powerful technology then they are going to be ok with that because it enhances their state in the world. The West seems to have more of an issue with this, and if you force the West to pay billions or trillions of dollars for everything to teach this system, then it simply either won't get done or will get done at a pace that puts the West at a severe disadvantage.
In my view, knowledge belongs to everyone. But I also don't want people more closely aligned with my ideals to be hobbled in the area of building these ultimate knowledge databases and tools. It could even be a major national security threat to not let these technologies develop in the way they need to.
If the rules are "You gotta pay for the book" and they don't pay for the book, they broke the rules, that's what I consider cheating. I don't necessarily agree with the rule, I disagree with cheating. This is, of course, relative, as truth and morality in general are.
Come on bro, let us pirate bro, just one more ngram of books bro
Good. Fuck AI
I hope generative AI obliterates copyright. I hope that its destruction is so thorough that we either forget it ever existed or we talk about it in disgust as something that only existed in stupider times.
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.
"Thing is, land ownership also served a purpose before lord's/landlord's/capitalists decided to expand it to the point of controlling and dictating the lives of serfs/renters/workers. "
Creation's are not that of only the individual creator, they come from a common progress, culture, and history. When individual creator's copyright their works and their works become a major part of common culture they slice up culture for themselves, dictating how it may be used against the wishes of the masses. Desiring this makes them unworthy of having any cultural control IMO. They become just as much of an authoritarian as a lord, landlord, or capitalist.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that copyright also harms individual creators once culture has been carved up: Producing brand new stories inevitably are in some way derivative of previous existing works so because they are locked out of the existing IP unless they sign a deal with the devil they're usually doomed to failure due to no ability to have a grip on cultural relevance.
Now, desiring the ability to make a living being an individual creator? That's completely reasonable. Copyright is not the solution however.
yeah and its sorta silly to even pretend that there is private ownership of land given property tax and regulations. The truth is the state owns the land that it holds by military might and the citizens rent portions for their needs.
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.
yeah its the same with patent. I often think both should only be given to individuals and entities should not be able to have them.
Interesting take. I'm not opposed, but I feel like the necessary reverse engineering skill base won't ramp up enough to deal with SAS and holomorphic encryption. So, in a world without copyright, you might be able to analog hole whatever non-interactibe media you want, but software piracy will be rendered impossible at the end of the escalation of hostilities.
Copyright is an unnatural, authoritarian-imposed monopoly. I doubt it will last forever.
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.
Absolutely, copyright or patent, not both. Though if, and only if, they function identically in duration, I wouldn't see the downside of having both other than additional expenses actually filing for both
Lightly edited copy paste of my response elsewhere:
Creation’s are not that of only the individual creator, they come from a common progress, culture, and history. When individual creator’s copyright their works and their works become a major part of common culture they slice up culture for themselves, dictating how it may be used against the wishes of the masses. Desiring this makes them unworthy of having any cultural control IMO. They become just as much of an authoritarian as a lord, landlord, or capitalist.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that copyright also harms individual creators once culture has been carved up: Producing brand new stories inevitably are in some way derivative of previous existing works so because they are locked out of the existing IP unless they sign a deal with the devil they’re usually doomed to failure due to no ability to have a grip on cultural relevance.
Now, desiring the ability to make a living being an individual creator? That’s completely reasonable. Copyright is not the solution however.
I find that very unlikely to happen. If AI is accepted as fair use by the legal system, then that means they have a motive to keep copyright as restrictive as possible; it protects their work but allows them to use every one else's. If you hate copyright law (and you should) AI is probably your enemy, not your ally.
But if you stop me from criming, how will I get better at crime!?!
Technofascism on its way to legalize my 30TB trove of backups
If I had to pay tuition for education (buying text books, pay for classes and stuff), then you have to pay me to train your stupid AI using my materials.
If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean's you're just another Organised Crime group.
Organized crime exists to make money; the way OpenAI is burning through it, they're more Disorganized Crime
Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".
If I'm using "AI" to generate subtitles for the "community" is ok if i have a large "datastore" of "licensable media" stored locally to work off of right?
over it is then. Buh bye!
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
Vote pirate party.
Good.
Fuck Sam Altman's greed. Pay the fucking artists you're robbing.
Good. I hope this is what happens.
1) 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.
2) 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
3) Altman can go fuck himself
Good if AI fails because it can't abuse copyright. Fuck AI.
*except the stuff used for science that isn't trained on copyrighted scraped data, that use is fine
Yeah unfortunately we’ve started calling any LLM “AI”
In ye old notation ML was a subset of AI, and thus all LLM would be considered AI. It's why manual decision trees that codify get NPC behaviour are also called AI, because it is.
Now people use AI to refer only to generative ML, but that's wrong and I'm willing to complain every time.
Fuck OpenAI for stealing the hard work of millions of people
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.
In America, companies have more rights than the human person.
If companies say that they need to do something to survive, that makes it ok. If a human needs to do something to survive, that's a crime.
Know the difference. (/s)
What's really fucked up is that for some people this is not far from their reality at all
I think they are either completely delusional, or they know very well how important AI is for the government and the military. The same cannot be said for regular people and their daily struggles.
Copyright should not exist in the first place.
It should exist
A creator should own their creation and be able to defend misuse of it for a period of time. Current copyright laws are bullshit though.
I was thinking at the same thing
No
I always felt using publicly available but copyrighted works could be ok but only if the model is publicly available as well
These fuckers are the first one to send tons of lawyers whenever you republish or use any IP of them. Fuck these idiots.
As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I'd like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.
I love your name
Thanks!
I am good with that.
dont threaten me with a good time
No, actually they've just finally admitted that they can't improve them any further because there's not enough training data in existence to squeeze any more demonizing returns out of.
This is exactly what social media companies have been doing for a while (it’s free, yes) they use your data to train their algorithms to squeeze more money out of people. They get a tangible and monetary benefit from our collective data. These AI companies want to train their AI on our hard work and then get monetary benefit off of it. How is this not seen as theft or even if they are not doing it just yet…how is it not seen as an attempt at theft?
How come people (not the tech savvy) are unable to see how they are being exploited? These companies are not currently working towards any UBI bills or policies in governments that I am aware of. Since they want to take our work, and use it to get rich and their investors rich why do they think they are justified in using people’s work? It just seems so slime-y.
Capital calls its own theft "innovation" and that of the individual "crime".
They're actually not making money. They're losing money. Yes yes, I know they're raising billions of dollars, but that goes into the training of the these models which requires manpower and a massive amount of compute and energy. Yeah, they tend to charge to use it (but also offer free tiers) but this is to put back into training.
Here's the thing. The cat is out of the bag. It's coming one way or another, and it will either be by us, or it will be by not us.
I'd rather it be us. Id rather us not be so selfish and rather us be willing to contribute to this ultimate tool for the betterment of all.
Why does Sam keep threatening us with a good time?
Sadly this comes down to OpenAI petitioning Trump, and expecting trump to do anything that could stop a scam like AI is pointless.
Musk has an AI project. Techbros have deliberately been sucking up to Trump. I’m pretty sure AI training will be declared fair use and copyright laws will remain the same for everybody else.
Its simple really. We need to steal from humans who make things to train our computers to make things so the computers can replace the humans who make things and we dont want to pay the humans who made the original things because they will be replaced soon enough anyway. Easy peasy. Do you guys even capitalism?
Corporations trying to profit by closing off vast tracts of human output are bumping into other corporations trying to mine it for profit.
Oh no! How will I generate a picture of Sam Altman blowing himself now!?
Wdym? He removed his rib or something?
I was thinking more of a Sam 1 and Sam 2 type situation.
Photoshop, just like the rest of us.
Oops, oh well. I very much hope it's over, asshole.
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.
I didn't think you've thought it through to it's logical conclusion, and your example shows a demeaning attitude towards what AI can currently be used for. When you reduce it to what you view as ridiculous uses, you become lacking in the facts.
I'm fine for them to use copyrighted material, provided that everyone can do the same without reprecautions
Fuck double standards. Fuck IP. People should have access to knowledge without having to pay.
PS. I know this might be an unpopular opinion
Edit: typos
On the other side, creators should be paid for their labor.
I couldn't agree more. The thing with IP is that it tends to last almost forever, thus it almost never enters public domain, at least in a man's lifetime. The result is it stifles innovation and prevents knowledge NAD entertainment to the masses. Lastly almost always, it's not the creator that benefits of it, rather than a huge corp
Sam Altman is a grifter, but on this topic he is right.
The reality is, that IP laws in their current form hamper innovation and technological development. Stephan Kinsella has written on this topic for the past 25 years or so and has argued to reform the system.
Here in the Netherlands, we know that it's true. Philips became a great company because they could produce lightbulbs here, which were patented in the UK. We also had a booming margarine business, because we weren't respecting British and French patents and that business laid the foundation for what became Unilever.
And now China is using those exact same tactics to build up their industry. And it gives them a huge competitive advantage.
A good reform would be to revert back to the way copyright and patent law were originally developed, with much shorter terms and requiring a significant fee for a one time extension.
The current terms, lobbied by Disney, are way too restrictive.
I totally agree. Patents and copyright have their place, but through greed they have been morphed into monstrous abominations that hold back society. I also think that if you build your business on crawled content, society has a right to the result to a fair price. If you cannot provide that without the company failing, then it deserves to fail because the business model obviously was built on exploitation.
I agree, which is why I advocate for reform, not abolishment.
Perhaps AI companies should pay a 15% surcharge on their services and that money goes directly into the arts.
That's not fair to change the system only when businesses require it. I received a fuckin' letter from a government entity where I live for having downloaded the trash tier movie "Demolition".
I agree copyright and patents are bad but it's so infuriating that only the rich and powerful can choose not to respect it.
So I think openAI has to pay because as of now that shitty copyright and patent system is still there and has hurt many individuals around the world.
We should try to change the laws for copyright but after the big businesses pay their due.
I mean, I'd say there's a qualitative difference between industrial products and a novel, for example.
But Sam is talking about copyright and all your examples are patents
It just so happens that in AI it's about copyright and with margarine (and most other technologies) it's about patents.
But the point is the same. Technological development is held back by law in both cases.
If all IP laws were reformed 50 years ago, we would probably have the technology from 2050, today.
It's all the same shit. No patents and copyrights should exist.
Is it? In Sam's case, we're mostly talking about creative products in the form of text, audio, and video. If an artist releases a song and the song is copyrighted, it doesn't hamper innovation and technological development. The same cannot be said when a company patents a sorting algorithm, the method for swiping to unlock a smartphone, or something similar.
If copyrights are used to add a huge price tag to any AI development, then it did just hamper innovation and technological development.
And sadly, what most are clamoring for will disproportionately affect open source development.
If open source apps can't be copyrighted then the GPL is worthless and that will harm open source development much more
I'm not sure how that applies in the current context, where it would be used as training data.
Lmao Sam Altman doesn't want tbe rules chanhed for you. He wants it changed for him.
You will still be beholden to the laws.
Good, end this AI bullshit, it has little upsides and a metric fuckton of downsides for the common man
It has some great upsides. But those upsides can be trained on specific information that they pay for instead of training AI on people's stuff who didn't consent.
You don't want to all become literally socially and mentally retarded together but apart?
Okay.
It was fun while it lasted.
For someone.
I presume.
🤞🤞
🙏
Then die. I don't know what else to tell you.
If your business model is predicated on breaking the law then you don't deserve to exist.
You can't send people to prison for 5 years and charge them $100,000 for downloading a movie and then turn around and let big business do it for free because they need to "train their AI model" and call one of thief but not the other...
Absolutely. But in this case the law is also shit and needs to be reformed. I still want to see Altman fail, because he's an asshole. But copyright law in its current form is awful and does hold back society.
All of Wall Street sweating nervously
The law isn't automatically moral.
This issue just exposes how ridiculous copyright law is and how much it needs to be changed. It exists specifically to allow companies to own, for hundreds of years, intellectual property.
It was originally intended to protect individual artists but has slowly mutated to being a tool of corporate ownership and control.
But, people would rather use this as an opportunity to dunk on companies trying to develop a new technology rather than as an object lesson in why copyright rules are ridiculous.
I don't disagree but the idea being that the law is made by supposedly moral men and that law is at least moral within the perspective and context of society at the time.
It's literally worse than piracy, since the AI companies are also trying to sell shittier versions of the works they copy from
Like selling camrips except done by multi-billion dollar companies ripping off individuals and stores are trying to put them right next to the original DVDs in the store
Good.
Good. If I ever published anything, I would absolutely not want it to be pirated by AI so some asshole can plagiarize it later down the line and not even cite their sources.
I don’t think they’re wrong in saying that if they aren’t allowed to train on copyrighted works then they will fall behind. Maybe I missed it in the article, but Japan for example has that exact law (use of copyright to train generative AI is allowed).
Personally I think we need to give them somewhat of an out by letting them do it but then taxing the fuck out of the resulting product. “You can use copyrighted works for training but then 50% of your profits are taxed”. Basically a recognition that the sum of all copyrighted works is a societal good and not just an individual copyright holders.
https://jackson.dev/post/generative-ai-and-copyright/
No, taxes implies a monopoly on the training data. The government profits. The rights holders get nothing back.
If private data is deemed public for AI training then the results of that training (code+weights+source list) should also be deemed public.
fully agree, the only way I'm ok with fair use for AI is if the resulting product is public use. Even if they want to charge for the product to use their frontend, give the ability to use the system local (if your system can support it) much like how most self hosting software does it
50% is too little if you want to allow that
My main takeaway is that some contrived notion of "national security" has now become an acceptable justification for business decisions in the US.
looks good
Guarantee their plan is to blow through copyright laws to create a monopoly fiefdom, close the door behind them and demand that copyright is used to protect the work their LLM creates.
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.
Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term
Thanks that's very insightful and I'll amend my position to 15 years 5 may be just a little zealous. 100 year US copyrights have been choking innovation due to things like Disney led trade group lobbyists, 15 years would be a huge boost to many creators being able to leverage more IPs and advancements being held in limbo unused or poorly used by corpo entities.
I think copyright lasting 20 years or so is not unreasonable in our current society. I'd obviously love to live in a society where we could get away with lower. As a compromise, I'd like to see compulsory licensing applied to all written work. (E.g., after n years, anyone can use it if they pay royalties and you can't stop them; the amount of royalties gradually decreases until it's in the public domain.)
Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I'm in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.
The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span--it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we'd be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.
5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.
Exactly! That's what we had originally in the US, and I thought that was more than fair. I would add that the renewal should only be awarded if they can prove they need more time to recoup R&D costs and it's still available commercially.
So yeah, something in the neighborhood of 10-15 years w/ a renewal sounds totally fair to me. Let them keep the trademarks and whatnot as long as they're in use (e.g. you shouldn't be able to make a new entry in a series w/o the author's permission for the marks, but fanfic that explicitly mentions it's not original/canon would probably fall under fair use), but the actual copyright should expire very quickly.
You don't have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it's just you won't have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.
how about: tiered copy rights?
after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?
it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…
We'll just having some copyright look like?
Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.
Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn't just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.
I suppose it would encourage George Martin to get a move on. Or twice you could set stories in his universe before he finished writing the third book. I still think 5 years is too short though.
What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?
I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it's still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.
i left it open ended like that because there’s a lot of options….
i’d probably start with selling, like after 5 years people are welcome to copy it and distribute it but not sell it…
but i mean, a lot of variations are possible….
And how do you think that's going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?
The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.
Just because corporations abuse it doesn't mean we throw it out.
It shouldn't be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.
Or maybe 5 years unless it's an individual.
Edit - think logically. You think the corps are winning now with the current state of copyright? They won't NEED to own everything without copyright and patent laws. They'll just be able to make profit off your work without passing any of it to the creator.
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 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.
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?
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.
I think 5 years is a bit short.
I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there's hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.
You don't have to stop selling when it becomes public domain, people sell books, movies, music, etc that are all in the public domain and people choose it over free versions all the time because of convenience, patroning arts, etc.
Hard to compete with the megacorp that publishes all books on a 5 year delay and rebrands it as their own, because there's no rules with public domain.
Well, except trademark and fraud. But there are plenty of workarounds to that.
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.
I just know where the future is headed. Gotta be realistic about it.
the issue is that foreign companies aren't subject to US copyright law, so if we hobble US AI companies, our country loses the AI war
I get that AI seems unfair, but there isn't really a way to prevent AI scraping (domestic and foreign) aside from removing all public content on the internet
Send This comment To the top
Oh no, not the plagiarizing machine! How are rich hacks going to feign talent now? Pay an artist for it?! Crazy!
I need a seamstress AI to take over 10 million seamstress robots so I don't have to pay 100million seamstresses for fruit of the loom underwear.... Could you tech it how to do double well and then back up at each end with some zigzags? For free? I mean everyone knows zigzag!
How many pages has a human author read and written before they can produce something worth publishing? I’m pretty sure that’s not even a million pages. Why does an AI require a gazillion pages to learn, but the quality is still unimpressive? I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the way we teach these models.
To be fair, that's all they have to go on. If a picture's worth a thousand words, how many pages is a lifetime (or even a childhood) of sight and sound?
That’s a good point. A human author would be influenced by life in general, not just the books.
Because an AI is not a human brain?
It's impressive how the technology have advanced in the last years. But obviously it is not a human brain.
Because humans learn how to read and interpret those pages in school. Give that book to a toddler and not much will happen other than some bite marks.
AI needs to learn the language structure, grammar, math, logic, reasoning, problem solving and much more before it can even be trained with anything useful. Humans take years to acquire those skills, AI takes more content but can do that training much faster.
Maybe it is the wrong way to train machines but for now we have not invented robot schools yet so it's the best we got.
By the way, I still think companies should be banned from training with copyrighted content and user data behind closed doors. Keep your models in public domain or get out.
The more important question is: Why can a human absorb a ton of material in their learning without anyone crying about them "stealing"? Why shouldn't the same go for AI? What's the difference? I really don't understand the common mindset here. Is it because a trained AI is used for profit?
What you're talking about is if AI is actually inventing new work (imo, yes it is), but that's not the issue.
The issue is these models were trained on our collective knowledge & culture without permission, then sold back to us.
Unless they use only proprietary & public training data, every single one of these models should be open sourced/weighted & free for anyone to use, like libraries.
Absolutely. But especially because it skews the market dynamic. Copyright doesn't exist for moral reasons but financial reasons.
There is a difference between me reading a book and learning from it and one of the biggest companies in the world pirating millions of books for their business. And it really gets bad when normal users are getting sued for tenthousands of dollars when they download a book or a MP3 and Meta is getting defended for doing the same thing, but in a much larger scale.
Yes, we know that copyright is broken. But if it is broken, it has to be broken for all
I’ve been thinking about that as well. If an author has bought 500 books, and read them, it’s obviously going to influence the books they write in the future. There’s nothing illegal about that. Then again, they did pay for the books, so I guess that makes it fine.
What if they got the books from a library? Well, they probably also paid taxes, so that makes it ok.
What if they pirated those books? In that case, the pirating part is problematic, but I don’t think anyone will sue the author for copying the style of LOTR in their own works.
Exactly!
It is because a human artist is usually inspired and uses knowledge to create new art and AI is just a mediocre mimic. A human artist doesn't accidentally put six fingers on people on a regular basis. If they put fewer fingers it is intentional.
If your argument is that it depends on the quality of the output, then I definitely shouldn't be allowed to look at art or read books.
I didn't say anything about quality.
That's where I don't agree. I don't subscribe to the view that LLMs merely are "stochastic parrots".
What do you think they are if not that?
They don't have emotions, they don't have individual motivations, and don't have intent.
No. But I do think they mimick the language capacity in the human brain.
"How am I supposed to make any money if I can't steal all of my products to sell back to the world that produced them?"
Yeah, fuck that. The whole industry deserves to die.
Then perish, OpenAI. If your only innovation is a legal loophole then you did nothing.
He's right tho. China don't care. You think the west will be able to outcompete China with such limitations?
And the end result is the same, no one was compensated and a dictatorship is running one of the most important new IT tools.
What a giant load of crap.
Good riddance. This version of AI is just a glorified search engine anyways
And it's not even a good search engine either. It just spits out sarcastic jokes from barely up voted reddit posts.
So all I need to do if I get caught torrenting a movie is say that im training an LLM for subtitles?
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?
His personal race is over? Oooohhhh, so sorry for him.
AI is not over at all. Maybe he himself will not become the ruler of the world now. No loss.
Yeah, China sure as shit isn't going to lose sleep over a US Copyright case.
Good. Fuck off.
Good
chatgpt is stagnant, the newest model was lackluster despite using way more resources and costing a shitload of cash, Altman is floundering and on his way out he’s going to try do some lobbying bullshit
Copyright is bullshit and honestly if it disappeared it would help small creators more than anything but openai is not a small creator and guaranteed they will lobby for only huge corps like them to get such an exception. You and I will still get sued to shit by disney or whoever for daring to make $500 off of a shitty project that used some sample or something while meta and openai get free reign to steal the entirety of humanity’s creative output with no recompense
He's afraid of losing his little empire.
OpenAI also had no clue on recreation the happy little accident that gave them chatGPT3. That's mostly because their whole thing was using a simple model and brute forcing it with more data, more power, more nodes and then even more data and power until it produced results.
As expected, this isn't sustainable. It's beyond the point of decreasing returns. But Sam here has no idea on how to fix that with much better models so goes back to the one thing he knows: more data needed, just one more terabyte bro, ignore the copyright!
And now he's blaming the Chinese into forcing him to use even more data.
Arr, matey.
Ip should solely be with the creator and not the corporation that owns that creator. A lot of problems in stems is IP held hostage by the corporations and by publishing companies of research papers
I think the answer is there just do what deepseek did.
Do you promise?!?!
Porque no los dos?
The ai race is over AND we abolish the copyright bullshit laws we have now?
Good, fuck "AI" fuck copyright, fuck patents, fuck proprietary closed-source software, fuck capitalism, fuck billionaires, and fuck you, Sam, in particular.
This sounds like socialism is good for capitalists
I'll take him seriously if & when OpenAI lives up to its name.
Fair use doesn't mean shit if you're a pirate.
Arr, matey.
It's so wild how laws just have no idea what to do with you if you just add one layer of proxy.
"Nooo I'm not stealing and plagerizing, it's the AI doing it!"
Over in the US, that's giving China the advantage in AI development. Won't happen.
It's it's like USA adopting China's IP laws.
Perhaps this is just a problem with the way the model works. Always requiring new data and unable to use current data, to ponder and expand upon while making new connections about ideas that influenced the author… LLM’s are a smoke and mirrors show, not a real intelligence.
They do seem fundamentally limited somehow. With all the bazillion watts they are cheap imitation at best compared to mere 20 Watts of human brain
or it might be playing dumb...
Apparantly their trying to get Deepseek banned again, really doesn't like competition this guy.
Alright, I confess! Almost all of my training in computer programming came from copyrighted material. Put the cuffs on me!
You were trained and learned and are able to create new things.
AI poorly mimics thngs it has seen before.
The issue being raised is copyright infringement, not the quality of the results. Writers "borrow" each other's clever figures of speech all the time without payment or attribution. I'm sure I have often copypasted code without permission. AI does nothing on its own, it's always a tool used by human beings. I think the copyright argument against AI is built on a false distinction between using one tool vs another.
My larger argument is that nobody has an inherent right to control what everybody else does with some idea they've created. For many thousands of years people saw stuff and freely imitated it. Oh look, there's an "arch" - I think I'll build a building like that. Oh look, that tribe uses that root to make medicine, let's do the same thing. This process was known as "the spread of civilization" until somebody figured out that an authority structure could give people dibs on their ideas and force other people to pay to copy them. As we evolve more capabilities (like AI) I think it's time to figure out another way to reward creators without getting in the way of improvement, instead of hanging onto a "Hey, that's Mine!" mentality that does more to enrich copy producers than it does to enrich creators.
Yes, whether copyright should exist is a different discussion than how AI is violating it in a very different way than snippets being reused in different contexts as part of a new creative work.
Intentionally using a single line is very different than scooping up all the data and hitting a randomizer until it stumbles into some combination that happens to look usable. Kind of like how a single business jacking up prices is different than a monopoly jacking up all the prices.
Stripping away your carefully crafted wording, the differences fade away. "Hitting a randomizer" until usable ideas come out is an equally inaccurate description of either human creativity or AI. And again, the contention is that using AI violates copyright, not how it allegedly does that.
So the other thing with AI is the companies are not just making money on the output like an artist would. They are making bank on investors and stock market speculation that exists only because they scooped up massive amounts of copyrighted materials to create their output. It really isn't comparable to a single artist or even a collection of artists.
Again, AI doesn't do anything, any more than hammers and saws build houses. People use AI to do things. Anyway, profiting from investors and speculators without giving creators a piece of the action isn't a consequence of AI, it's how our whole system already works.
Oh no anyway.jpg
Sad to see you leave (not really, tho'), love to watch you go!
Edit: I bet if any AI developing company would stop acting and being so damned shady and would just ASK FOR PERMISSION, they'd receive a huge amount of data from all over. There are a lot of people who would like to see AGI become a real thing, but not if it's being developed by greedy and unscrupulous shitheads. As it stands now, I think the only ones who are actually doing it for the R&D and not as eye-candy to glitz away people's money for aesthetically believable nonsense are a handful of start-up-likes with (not in a condescending way) kids who've yet to have their dreams and idealism trampled.
In Spain we trained an AI using a mix of public resources available for AI training and public resources (legislation, congress sessions, etc). And the AI turned out quite good. Obviously not top of the line, but very good overall.
It was a public project not a private company.
But what data would it be?
Part of the "gobble all the data" perspective is that you need a broad corpus to be meaningfully useful. Not many people are going to give a $892 billion market cap when your model is a genius about a handful of narrow subjects that you could get deep volunteer support on.
OTOH maybe there's probably a sane business in narrow siloed (cheap and efficient and more bounded expectations) AI products: the reinvention of the "expert system" with clear guardrails, the image generator that only does seaside background landscapes but can't generate a cat to save its life, the LLM that's a prettified version of a knowledgebase search and NOTHING MORE
You've highlighted exactly why I also fundamentally disagree with the current trend of all things AI being for-profit. This should be 100% non-profit and driven purely by scientific goals, in which case using copyrighted data wouldn't even be an issue in the first place... It'd be like literally giving someone access to a public library.
Edit: but to focus on this specific instance, where we have to deal with the here-and-now, I could see them receiving, say, 60-75% of what they have now, hassle-free. At the very least, and uniformly distributed. Again, AI development isn't what irks most people, it's calling plagiarism generators and search engine fuck-ups AI and selling them back to the people who generated the databases - or, worse, working toward replacing those people entirely with LLMs! - they used for those abhorrences.
Train the AI to be factually correct instead and sell it as an easy-to-use knowledge base? Aces! Train the AI to write better code and sell it as an on-board stackoverflow Jr.? Amazing! Even having it as a mini-assistant on your phone so that you have someone to pester you to get the damned laundry out of the washing machine before it starts to stink is a neat thing, but that would require less advertising and shoving down our throats, and more accepting the fact that you can still do that with five taps and a couple of alarm entries.
Edit 2: oh, and another thing which would require a buttload of humility, but would alleviate a lot of tension would be getting it to cite and link to its sources every time! Have it be transformative enough to give you the gist without shifting into plagiarism, then send you to the source for the details!
Sounds good, fuck em
Open can suck some dick.
Is that a promise?
Oh no! How could we ever live without AI?
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.
He means development of AI in public view is over. Governments will continue without regard for copyright protections until we are all dead.
I dont wanna be mean but I always thought this guy had a weird face
Race over, eh? Welp, see ya later!
🏴☠️
AI always been about using stolen stuff
National security my ass. More like his time span to show more dumb "achievements" while getting richer depends on it and nothing else
To be fair, they’re not wrong. We need to find a legal comprise that satisfies everyone
It's called paying for the content
This.
I support AI, but I don't understand why AI bros are complicating things or making things all-or-nothing.
OpenAI had enough money to hire a hitman on one of their whistleblowers. They can afford to pay for content, lol.
But how will corporations like Disney survive without copywrites?! Won't someone think about the poor corporations?!
/s
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
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.
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.
We'll see how it turns out, but yea they're in big trouble
Oh no, how horrible... AI is dead in the US? How shall we live?
/sarcasm
I’m not an american but losing in that area internationally might be way worse than to fight over training data.
Maybe not paying the full amount of the copyright, but I agree they should compensate the IP holders.
I don't believe there's a future in AI at all.
Why though? For me it’s already very useful. You can also see what boston dynamic does thats also very helpful in general.
Don’t be so ignorant.
You don't need to say anything else, I'm already happy with that outcome
Yes, please.
Many of you are completely two-faced on copyright laws.
Please, let it be over. Idiotic "ai"....
Are they listening to themselves?
So what Altman is saying here is that without the low hanging fruit of human generated training data, the AI race is over.
He's either full of shit or this AI bubble is about to burst.
In the early 80s I used to have fantasies about having a foster
robotandroid that my family was teaching how to be a person. Oh the amusing mix-ups we got into! We could just do that. Train on experiential reality instead of on the dim cultural reflection of reality.Edit: "robot" means "slave"
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 🤔
Oh yes. Deepseek can quote from copyright sources. So can openAI models, but they are programmed not to.
Facebook trained on the torrent of Annas archive.
The copyright horse has left the stable.
So, did we win?
Stop the count!
yeah thats crazy
Oh noooooooooooo.
/s.
Sorry to say, but he's right. For AI to truly flourish in the West, it needs access to all previously human made information and media.
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.
They don't want to change the law, they just want an exemption for themselves. Rules for thee, not for me.
I think the exemption would be necessary to keep up with other nations who aren't and will never be beholden to such laws.
who are these international and ideological competitors ? What happens if they develop it further than for profit corporations ?
To me it seems like for profit corporations themselves are our international and ideological adversaries.
For example, the US and China are international and ideological competitors.
Then it's a good thing they won't get it.
I don't think you've thought that out to its logical conclusion.
I don't want AI to flourish.
Why?
Because of the environmental cost and climate change
Because of the jobs being destroyed by productivity gains
Because of the Internet starting to fill up with slop that drowns out the really relevant sites
Do you realize these companies are now making bigger investments into green energy?
This was always going to happen with the advancement of technology. It's inevitable so long as humanity survives long enough.
Like what?
For a lot of things to truly flourish, copyright law has to be appended. But the exception is made specifically for AI because that's the thing billionaires can afford to develop while the rest cannot. This is a serious driver for inequality, and it is not normal some people can twist the law as they see fit.
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?
We need to annect Austria, Czechoslovak Republic and Poland otherwise China will do it first.
Hail Hydra
Annex
thank you
Okay, bye!
I mean if they pay for it like everyone else does I don't think it is a problem. Yes it will cost you billions and billions to do it correctly, but then you basically have the smartest creature on earth (that we know of) and you can replicate/improve on it in perpetuity. We still will have to pay you licensing fees to use it in our daily lives, so you will be making those billions back.
Now I would say let them use anything that is old and freeware, textbooks, etc. government owned stuff - we sponsored it with our learning, taxes - so we get a percentage in all AI companies. Humanity gets a 51% stake in any AI business using humanity's knowledge, so we are then free to vote on how the tech is being used and we have a controlling share, also whatever price is set, we get half of it back in taxes at the end of the year. The more you use it the more you pay and the more you get back.
They're unprofitable as it is already. They're not going to be able to generate enough upfront capital to buy and then enclose all of humanity's previous works to then sell it back to us. I also think it would be heinous that they could enclose and exploit our commons in this manner.
It belongs to all of us. Sure train it and use it, but also release it open (or the gov can confiscate it, fine with that as well).
Anything but allowing those rat-snakes to keep it all for themselves.
They can be even more unprofitable like Amazon was for years and years - and now they print money. I don't think it's a bad model, but it's gonna come down to just a couple governments/companies having powerful AIs where we are not needed anymore - so if it's privately owned it would spell doom for the human species or at least a huge portion of it, potential enslavement as well.
If it costs billions and billions, then only a handful of companies can afford to build an AI and they now have a monopoly on a technology that will eventually replace a chunk of the workforce. It would basically be giving our economy to Google.
Yep exactly, that's why you make it people owned. What is your alternative ? They do have companies/governments that can afford it even at these steep prices.
The owners of the copyrighted works should be paid in perpetuity too though, since part of their work goes into everything the AI spits out.
I don't see why I'm downvoted for this, but I don't agree with this opinion - it's like teaching a human being. If you buy everything once it's still a hell of a bill - we are talking all books, all movies, all games, all software, all memes, all things - 1 of each is still trillions if you legally want to train your new thing on it.
But a human can't look at a painting for a millisecond and spit out an exact replica in the next. A human can't listen to the collected works of a musical artist and instantly improvise infinite sound-a-like songs based on complex prompts. A human can't read every scientific article on the Internet in a few seconds and regurgitate any and every tiny trivial detail on demand in the literal blink of an eye. A human being has a soul. Most do anyway.
For the record, I didn't downvote you, but I'm guessing others did because you don't seem to see how AI so obviously devalues the beautiful and brilliant efforts of the human spirit to build and sustain our cultures, our societies, our civilizations, our species, our very world. In the capitalist hellscape that we currently suffer in, that kind of devaluing ought to be criminal.
Not targetting you specifically, but I guess AI is going to be a hard subject in the future.
Think of it as an expert in all other areas and you spend a year teaching it to be a better expert and so on. It's just humanity's digital baby that we are teaching based on our current knowledge, technology, art, values, morals, etc. - and it's just much better than you or me at learning so it's becoming an expert in everything, thus as you expect from an expert it's able to draw, it's able to replicate style's of music, it's able to think through complex math/physics/chem/biology problems as a human expert might be able to. Yet it has fatal flaws that need fixing, thus needs better training methods and more time - they are saying 2029 for AGI which is the first step. At that point it won't be up to you or me to decide as it will be a new living form that we will have to acknowledge and let it decide for itself what it wants or doesn't want to do.
I guess my point is it seems like it's devaluing stuff, but is in fact elevating everything that we were, we are and will be - that's why I'm saying it should be owned by all of us, we should all get the benefits. If a painter wants to draw something, they can use AI to draw faster, with more variations at a speed impossible before, you can make new styles, you can make it use just your own style, you save time and can create more complex works because of that. Real world paintings made by humans the old school way will always have a place, my thoughts are that they will even gain an exclusive status and be worth even more with proof of creation.
Not saying things are not bad right now, but what if AI is the path forward, like technology always has been - what if it helps cure all diseases past and future, what if it figures out how to make us immortal, what if we can travel instantenously from 1 place in the universe to another, imagine the possibilities that it will open to us. I think it's inevitable really.
Fucking hellscape
I find it odd that Lemmy users are so adverse to tech.
People are not averse to tech, they are averse to being treated like shit as compared to rich businesses. If copyright doesn't apply to companies it must not apply to individuals.
In that case most of I think will agree to LLMs learning from all the written stuff.
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.
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.
Billionaires control our government so nationalizing it is no different.
I am opposed to shitty tech.
It's not shitty tech.
It is the shittiest tech. If you think this bullshit will actually lead to AGI, something that wouldn't be shit, you don't know much about LLMs or are incredibly delusional.
LLMs are an implementation on the way to AGI.
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.
Is that so? I don't find it odd at all when the only thing LLMs are good at so far is losing people their jobs and lowering the quality of essentially everything they get shoved into.
That sounds like user error, not the LLMs fault
I agree with the other user that it sounds like user error. Or perhaps you've not really used them at all, and just have joined the AI hate bandwagon.
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.
You sound like an old man yelling about the TV. LLMs are NOT unhelpful. You'd know this if you actually used them.
I've used them and have yet to get a fully correct result on anything I've asked beyond the absolute basics. I always have to go in and correct some aspect of whatever it shits out. Scraping every bit of data they can get their hands on is only making the problem worse.
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%.
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?
I have used them in a large variety of ways, from general knowledge seeking to specific knowledge seeking, writing code, generating audio, images, and video. I use it most days, if not essentially every day. What examples would you like me to provide? Tell me and I will provide them.
The world doesn't allow us to disconnect tech and capitalism. Why should we be happy about the tech just for the techs sake? People aren't adverse to the tech. They are against its use to further our exploitation.
It's not tech for techs sake, and it's not exploitation.
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.
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.
Yeah it's crazy how intense the Lemmy hive mind is about some things. It's basically a cult
lol, this is a human trait, not a Reddit/Twitter/Lemmy "thing".
Having used reddit for many years i find the hive mind here to be even more extreme, especially around certain topics (all FOSS is good, all other tech is bad, etc)
Certain topics will surely be hotter among our niche demographic here, I'm sure. But the behavior is human at the root, surely. There's nowhere where I don't see this type of behavior if there are enough people to exhibit it.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
Strange that no one mentioned openai making money off copyrighted works.