121–130 of 168 posts
I feel obliged to say that piracy is not theft... but more relevantly, I like how AI is showing us more clearly that everything is essentially a derivative work.
I think you have a ways to go with proving that assertion.
They were also successful in brainwashing people that this is a good thing. Phrases like everyone should get paid for their hard work are thrown around. And the brainwashed masses are frustrated to realize that they get only pennies for their art. They are embittered that they can't stop others using their art. They keep shouting that word: Theft.
Art is fundamentally derivative. It is my deep conviction that nobody has the right for a monopoly on usage, even that group, even if law says otherwise.
But hard work deserves compensation! I hear the cry.
Look at the more famous Youtube producers. They get compensation but at which price? They don't work for themselves anymore. While creating stuff they think about how to reach even more people. They lost the truth. Instead of truth they say, don't forget to click the bell.
Or look at the people working for free like parents caring for their children. They cook, clean, educate not for a lot of material gains, even worse, they have people telling them that what they do is not real work.
There are other examples of hard working people not getting compensation nor recognition or not a lot.
Remixing has been part of culture forever. The author is really just grousing about the fact that machines can remix now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see what you mean but i think we are digressing. A human has certain rights while a machine doesnt. If we give ai learning rights then who’s to say a database is not like a human memorising things at a highly accurate level and as such we should make databases not liable for the storage of any copyrighted material. I dont mind ai generating code or art as long as that code and art it was trained on is not our publi…
> I dont mind ai generating code or art as long as that code and art it was trained on is not our publicly available but licensed work. It sounds good but mandating this will be death of AI in the west. This is relatively unprecedented situation where the use of copyrighted works actually helps you build tools useful for doing work. Training on DeviantArt makes the AI better at Photoshop-esque tasks. Any country that…
Google drives traffic so at least you gain something as a creator. Also amp has been rather unpopular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, and by opening our minds to the broadest definitions of theft, we may see that nearly everything we say or otherwise express is "stolen" from earlier work, including your comment here.
Sometimes I think about how fucked the world would be if we approached all industries the way (say) photographers, authors or recording artists did. For a start, maybe i would get paid every time my clients posted some snaps of their house online, or invited someone over for dinner. (Mind you, we are well aware at this point that 99% of all architecture is derivative. So maybe I would just have to pay it on to Aalto'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again depends on what is meant by style. Another post in this thread suggested plot elements as part of style Aka “a wizardry school for preteens.” Sharing a few surface levels elements like that is fine, but if a one page description could equally well be used to describe both works you’re well over the line.
> if a one page description could equally well be used to describe both works lots of disney animations could've been described this way. And it's because they took storylines from well known folk tales and adapted it. the idea of a teen wizard/witch going to a special school, fighting a villain, etc, doesn't seem to be copyrightable. While the russian ripoff version seems very similar and skirt the line between a co…
I feel obliged to say that piracy is not theft... but more relevantly, I like how AI is showing us more clearly that everything is essentially a derivative work.
AI is teaching us about ourselves and this is only the beginning. Hidden beneath the veil of productivity we see its true feature: AI is a mirror; and we are looking right at it. https://bower.sh/in-love-with-a-ghost https://bower.sh/what-is-creativity
> We will end with a whimper, not a bang.
> She will not use force or wit, rather, we will be entranced by love. AI will align with our most intimate emotions so well that it will short-circuit our brains. We will be in love with ghosts, not ourselves.
Then we will end not with a whimper, but with a shrug. Because honestly, at that point I don't think anyone will care.
And that's okay. The belief that humans are special somehow is just that, a belief.
Maybe that was his point perhaps? I've read so many catastrophic predictions and laments about AI that I maybe just presumed it was meant in a negative way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the book you’re referring to was infringing. “Despite its reputation in Russia and the many books it has spawned, the series is not available in English translation, because of the first book having been judged a breach of copyright.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter So, respectfully you are simply mistaken.
Doh, I picked one that flew too close to the sun! That doesn’t mean I am incorrect about style not being copyrightable.
Anyway, many Russian works would be considered copyright infringement in other countries. The country however has minimal interest in respecting foreign copyrights. So if that’s your benchmark I can see why you might assume more leeway than actually exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different? Is every work in the training set licensed in a way that allows modification and redistribution?
> licensed in a way that allows modification and redistribution? why does this need to be done? The training is not modification and redistribution. If somebody coerced an AI to output something verbatim (or close enough to be called a modification/derivative), they are infringing copyright as it currently exists. But the AI model itself does not constitute redistribution.
This is incorrect when you consider either the literal way that content licenses are written or the spirit in which they are written.
In the literal sense, unless you yourself are privy to cutting-edge research that has solved the problem of "how do you know that the model won't reproduce some of its training data verbatim or with small modifications", no, you cannot guarantee that there won't be redistribution.
In the spirit of the way that licenses are written - "redistribution and modification" is meant to control whether you can profit (not necessarily literally - "profit" here can mean in a reputational sense, or being able to build on the work of others before you) from someone else's work/content/effort - and training on the data of people who did definitely not explicitly consent to it, and have not indicated that they're ok with other people taking their work in general, is definitely against that spirit.
And, regardless of both of the above - if training is neither modification nor redistribution, then it's a new case that isn't considered by existing content licenses, so the default is "assume consent not given" - training should never be performed on data that isn't explicitly licensed for it or without the creator's consent. Consent is given, never assumed - a license that says "you're allowed to redistribute this content, unmodified" does not say anything about machine learning, and given that you're claiming that training doesn't amount to redistribution - the license simply doesn't say anything about training, and therefore you cannot claim that the author intended for it to be used that way.
The attitude raised above is that of entitlement - you feel like you are entitled to use (because training is definitely using) other peoples' work for your own gain without compensating them in any way, and certainly not on their terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero seconds. IP protections are theft of future creativity, and a form of regulatory capture. If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking in the first place. And in practice the only rightsholders who benefit from enforcement of these "protections" are those who can afford to litigate them. Thus, it's a form of regulator…
Ok I support anti corporation but then how do talented artists make money? I don’t get this mentality and how it’s always taken to the extreme. Surely there’s some value to at least the artisan to be compensated for his creation?
Some form of UBI will be inevitable for human society to not collapse — there is not enough useful work for everyone.