281–290 of 309 posts
Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your imaginary resource (copyright) for the real resource (money), through licensing or fines. Debate about what AI means for copyright is really a debate about what we choose to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software people here, we dont want ai people to steal our open source code, hide it behind closed models, and sell it without attribution or other terms respected. Many in the software world are in awe how much theft ai people do.
Open generative models are to open source what open source is to closed source - an even deeper level of openness, customisability and accessibility. Like open source they empower their users, are private and easy to adapt. Most of the time you just need to prompt, other times you apply a fine-tuning tool, which is also open source. I really don't understand open source people combating generative AI. I've never seen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one that loves a blunt and honest comment? Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue with corporations protecting their own. That’s fine. What they want is to legally steal from the average joe.
> Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue with corporations protecting their own Are you just not aware that the most outspoken advocates against private property (and rights to it, including IP/copyright), also strongly oppose capitalism and the idea of corporations?
However, I am strongly against using artist or writer work against their will. That also benefits corporations. Also ironic that we can use against them the play they used against us. Imagine open models that the artist or legal or writing community can use but not corporations unless they open their models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you stealing from your lord, serf? Perhaps you should be churning the butter, not thinking for yourself. (I kid, I kid!) It's going to be just as easy to make a movie or a song as it was to write this comment. I'm working and researching at the edge, and I promise you that the entire world will be in awe of these next 12 months. Go play with Suno for a taste. I'm a senior engineer, and now I'm tab completing Rust…
The parent makes the mistake, to assume an adversarial relationship between an mp3 download from a torrent and the musician. Or an adversarial relationship between training an A.I. statistical engine to a painter and reproducing the style. That's not correct. We are now increasing the capabilities of everyone creative, to achieve much more, almost free and instantly. The painter now, will have a 100 million film stud…
Generating code is trivial. Generating code that works is not. I suspect you are at around 10-15% of reaching that. All models out there are probably at 2-3% as they barely equal a google prompt in reliability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did some limited testing(chatgpt 3.5). If you ask it to complete text and give it the first line, it will sometimes continue the lyrics. Seems to work best for particularly famous stretches of lyrics, like Lose Yourself by Eminem, Bohemian Rhapsody or Hurt. When I told it to complete the text "Obie Trice, real name no gimmicks", it said I'm sorry I can't reproduce the lyrics to Without Me by Eminem. And offered to te…
Holy crap, I managed it now in POE and ChatGPT 3.5. It halts output and can't continue even if requested as JSON for a project etc But look at this... https://poe.com/s/Y73se7ueRrQy9xHRPuoh I swear the chaps at OpenAI have it all as exact copies. Articles and whatnot. Why wouldn't they if they have the lyrics precisely cloned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it 'stolen' if it was part of a public dataset? Is the argument that OpenAI was scraping data that should have been behind a paywall?
If I create a sculpture and put it on my front lawn, I think it's fair for me to complain if you scan it and start 3d printing and selling copies, even if I intended it to be in public view. Just because I want the public to be able to enjoy my version of something, doesn't mean I want people to feel free to ingest it and monetize it for personal profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the right take — whatever your position on the future of this technology or its costs and benefits for humanity, the hypocrisy mentioned here shouldn't go unacknowledged.
It's only "hypocrisy" if it's the same people saying it. The media zeitgeist is not a person.
Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: "Piracy reduction can be a source of Windows revenue growth." [1]
Current Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: "Well, we’ve always had freemium. Sometimes our freemium was called piracy." [2]
[1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/only-consumers-pressure-can-cu...
[2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/20/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcri...
I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.
Rules for thee and not for me? Perhaps V, perhaps. I want to gently reframe the debate, for while I agree with the hypocrisy it rather misses a very key point. Intellectual law, as bedrock principle, explicitly doesn’t recognize nonhuman creators. So at the heart of the issue isn’t changing copyright laws or the death of IP, but what to do with non-human creativity? This is an interesting issue now, but most of the d…
Claims certainly get made, but they are subsequently shot down by future research. This has happened for discussions of emergence [1], reasoning [2], and other human attributes people have ascribed to LLMs.
[1]: https://neurips.cc/virtual/2023/poster/72117
[2]: https://m-cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/276268-can-llms-reall...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do intellectuals / creatives not deserve the fruits of their own labor? I get corporate IP is used for a lot of bad. But intellectuals and artists create a lot of value for society in ways that are very hard to monitize as a individual. If we completely kill IP what becomes of our authors, philopshipers, historians, artists etc.? They are already having it hard as it is with existing ip protections vs. big tech, big…
Yes, you are right. But. People do abuse the protections, which are too lengthy, makes possible to sell rights, etc. In the end, corporations (ab)uses (buy and sell rights) protections for amassing fortunes much bigger than the original creator ever got. That's not right, not fair, at all. System's broken, need fix, throw it all out and build something new, centered around creators. Give back to creators only, for le…