Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

Post by kranke155 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

EnergyAmy wrote: post #294

kranke155 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nothing against AI-generated art. It's the usage of unlicensed images and text in their training data that I have an issue with. If you wrote a book or made a painting, GPT-4 should pay for the rights to read or look at it.

What you're wishing for won't achieve what you want. You'd then be complaining because OpenAI bought one copy of every book, and authors can't survive on one sale alone. It doesn't really matter though. The models that exist today aren't going away, and future work will just be built on top of their output, tainting every model forevermore from your perspective. I suggest you adapt to the new way of things and enjoy…

Post by snovv_crash » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

corethree wrote: post #303

snovv_crash wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ok to give humans rights that we don't give to machines.

You're saying humans can break copyright but machines can't? You realized machines didn't break copyright right? Machines can't do this yet so it's a non issue at this point. Humans were sued in this lawsuit because humans are the ones who did this action. The lawsuit is about this: I can copy stuff into my brain but not into my cybernetic assistive brain.

Post by delecti » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 5:58 PM UTC

TotalCrackpot wrote: post #283

delecti wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most of the history of this species there also weren't books, people making a living writing books, computers, or importantly, the ability to endlessly copy books using computers. If we want people to write books, those people need to be able to feed themselves, and that's harder if nobody has any reason to pay for those books.

We can try some kind of libertarian socialism system, either with decentralized planing or with anti-capitalist markets to deal with it. Consider existence of services like patreon where people support creators they respect before are able to get to know the work of the author - no intellectual property rights are needed here.

Post by RavingGoat » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 6:10 PM UTC

tiahura wrote: post #161

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Moreover, the level of jurisprudence has never been higher. I'm confused as to what this sentence means. The level of {the study/philosophy/science of law} has never been higher?

That there has been a steady march forward in the quality of judicial output. There are still dumb judges and crooked judges, but overall, my experience is that younger judges are more willing to listen and be educated than judges of yesteryear. Additionally, Westlaw is hated by all for its pricing, but it’s almost impossible to comprehend how significantly it’s improved, and equalized, legal research.

Post by bcrosby95 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

EnergyAmy wrote: post #290

kranke155 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely misled interpretation of events, since automating my work to the scale of generative AI, there won't be any work left for humans. This "but progress" argument is tiring. The Industrial Revolution was a complete failure if you measure quality of life in its first decades. It got turned around by people who you know, fought back, created unions, and demanded fair pay.

> there won't be any work left for humans Good. That's the goal, and we can stop inventing stupid make-work for people when that happens. Jobs aren't the goal, making robots do all of the work is the goal. You're falling into the myopic trap of assuming that the current way of things won't change along with generative AI becoming commonplace.