81–90 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
A motivated legislature with skilled enforcement personnel could get the toothpaste back in the tube in short order provided they displayed an anomalous insensitivity to making the money sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that photographers have to independently submit each piece of work they wanted excluded along with detailed descriptions just shows how much they DONT want anyone excluding content from their training data. That's bloody brilliant. If you don't want us to scrape your content, please send us your content with all of the training data already provided so we will know not to scrape it if we come across it in…
The tech industry’s understanding of consent is terrifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it. Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.
There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A motivated legislature with skilled enforcement personnel could get the toothpaste back in the tube in short order provided they displayed an anomalous insensitivity to making the money sad.
When has something like this ever happened? It feels like legislature exists to make money happy.
Granted, that was more the exception than the rule...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should any artist be able to tell another artist: hey don't copy my work when you're learning, I don't want competition? It seems like they are deeply upset someone has figured out a way for a machine to do what artists have been doing since time immemorial.
My mom said the teachers in her painting classes would have the students recreate works and were very clear on which artists had given permission for those derivative works to be sold. Others they could only admire at home. The problem is not "when learning", the problem is "when distributing". Courts will determine whether or not disseminating or giving access to a model trained on protected works counts as distribu…
Technically making a copy to bring home for your own use is also problematic, just much less likely to get you into trouble. (Still a step removed from learning the skills and technique of making a copy, however.)
I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out. Eventually - for how many of these AI companies would a person have to track down their opt-out processes just to protect their work from AI? That's crazy. OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work. How they are getting away with this is beyond me.
Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it. Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.
It should. The 'free and open internet' is finished because nobody is going to want to subject their IP to rampant laundering that makes someone else rich.
Tragedy of the commons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Napster had a moment too, but then they got steamrolled in court. Courts are slow, so it seems like nothing is happening, but there’s tons of cases in the pipeline. The media industry has forced many tech firms to bend the knee, OpenAI will follow suit. Nobody rips off Disney IP and lives to tell the tale.
If your business model depends on the Roberts' court kneecapping AI, pivot. Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law because it involves the creation of intermediate, non-expressive data abstractions that do not reproduce or communicate the copyrighted work's original expression. This process aligns with fair use principles, as it is transformative, serves a distinct purpose (machine learning innova…
It should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A motivated legislature with skilled enforcement personnel could get the toothpaste back in the tube in short order provided they displayed an anomalous insensitivity to making the money sad.
When has something like this ever happened? It feels like legislature exists to make money happy.
Anything that used to be freely available but no longer is. Once upon a time Laudanum (tincture of opium) used to be the OTC painkiller of choice. In slightly more recent times, there's asbestos. In certain locales, gambling. There's countries that have reigned in lootboxes.
> It feels like legislature exists to make money happy.
Come on now, it doesn't just "feel" that way, you know for a fact that is indeed the purpose of the modern US legislature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh please. OpenAI and I guess every other AI company are for-profit. The only change they are motivated by is their bank balances. If this were a less useful tool they’d still be motivated to ignore laws and exploit others.
Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in. There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired. You don't see that at Boeing or Microsoft. Obviously it's a highly-commercial endeavor, which is why they are trying so hard to back away from the whole non-profit concept. But that's largely orthogonal to the question of…
It isn't.
> There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired.
This only reinforces that the real drive is money.