31–40 of 72 posts
It's so absolutely obvious that the concept of intellectual property is not going to survive. What's the point of this agonizing life support?
What does a post intellectual property world even look like, though? I'm not aware of any convincing frameworks that our existing society could merge into.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about opposite? If you regulate too much, you can’t innovate :)
It is important to recognize the distinction between money and wealth, which is often overlooked in American culture. The consistent high rankings of European countries on the lists of "happiest places to live" can be attributed, in part, to their approach in curbing corporate influence.
It's so absolutely obvious that the concept of intellectual property is not going to survive. What's the point of this agonizing life support?
If people can not protect or make a living from their work then they lose some of the motivation to create, many will stop producing work altogether. Interestingly, AI had to steal creators work to exist and did so without permission. AI in its current conception is cannibalising its own source material and risks being regulated out of existence. Had OpenAI et all acted responsible and within copyright law, they woul…
To me this issue looks a lot like self-driving cars. There was not any law saying that a car had to have a human driver, so Google was able to have its self-driving cars go coast-to-coast and it was 100% legal.
Your point about people making a living from work is a good one though, how do we continue to incentivize art in a world where everything posted online is included in the training set for some ML model? Well, lots of people do create art without making any money off of it today, so there's that, and I think at the high-end people will still want artisinal art made by a real human being. In the middle I think a lot of art jobs will either radically change or disappear, like logo design will probably still include a person, but the tools they use will be totally different. That seems like a good thing. However, again, in the middle range, a few people will be able to do way more work which will drastically reduce the number of people who actually get paid to do art. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. We're not talking about like fine art, but logos, website backdrops, etc. Certainly if we see a problem where people cannot be paid to do *anything* then that is a huge problem that society will have to solve or else it will be imperiled as well as leaving a ton of people out to dry. I really see some form of UBI as the only way forward, and then perhaps many people who would like to get paid to do art, but can't, will produce art while on UBI? IDK. There are a lot of intertwined issued here.
If you can't innovate, regulate ;)
The concentration of power is a bit scary in these corporations. Imagine that OpenAI inserts itself into business processes, without ability to switch to a different AI provider.
The amount of leverage it is going to have will be enormous. It’d be like the Internet service, only everything completely stops moving without it.
It's so absolutely obvious that the concept of intellectual property is not going to survive. What's the point of this agonizing life support?
If people can not protect or make a living from their work then they lose some of the motivation to create, many will stop producing work altogether. Interestingly, AI had to steal creators work to exist and did so without permission. AI in its current conception is cannibalising its own source material and risks being regulated out of existence. Had OpenAI et all acted responsible and within copyright law, they woul…
my code has gone into copilot
if the US decides that training isn't fair use then I'm going after everyone that's ever used copilot
settle for $10,000 immediately, or we go to court and it's the standard $150,000 per infraction
It's so absolutely obvious that the concept of intellectual property is not going to survive. What's the point of this agonizing life support?
It's not just about IP. Have you considered how much an LLM trained on scraping websites might know about you? Would it reveal that information if I prompted it with something like "Create a short story about HN user jMyles and his home life"? It might be best to know what these models have actually been trained on.
> When is my work protected?
> Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
good for hobbists and eventually AI will run on free open source data.
Is it? Most data that exists falls under copyright. This regulation will be worse for hobbyists who can't pay to access copyrighted data will simply cause companies like OpenAI to pay copyright holders (read: large copyright-holding corporations). This looks bad for everyone except large preexisting companies that hold lots of copyright.
I am not sure if this is true(that most of the input in this AIs is copyrighted under a non permissive license), but I would prefer to have everyone address this problem and clarify it, Microsoft trains it's copilot on GPL code, but can open source community train on MS proprietary code ?
Maybe there will be a fight against copyright and undo all the bullshit Disney created.
And it is not like in USA you can ignore copyright, see for example https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-... so USA will also have to answer the questions too, and IMO clarifying the situation earlier is better for everyone.