91–100 of 217 posts
VAT for content should be a thing. Ultimately all users should be getting paid
Then maybe the recording companies will start defending artist rights.
Because not sure what all the other industry bodies are doing.
Right, stealing training data from others is OK, having it stolen from you is not. What else is new?
That way he can continue to steal from others and lock competitors out whilst being comfortable knowing that no laws will be enacted to prevent it.
Right, stealing training data from others is OK, having it stolen from you is not. What else is new?
Almost certainly the easter egg found in the Trump "Big Beautiful Bill" which prevents states from enacting AI regulations also came from Musk. That way he can continue to steal from others and lock competitors out whilst being comfortable knowing that no laws will be enacted to prevent it.
Who's training an AI on the "Tweet" button text? Or are they trying to forgo section 230 protection and claim ownership of content uploaded to the site?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I get to use the platform for free, but I also get paid to post on the platform? I'm not sure that makes sense. Like I hate to take the side of big tech, but they can't literally be paying users to use their platform. Just use something else, there are a million social media sites
> I get to use the platform for free You actually get to generate content for the platform for free. Without you (all of the X users), the platform would be devoid of content, just botspeak and corporate promos. Plus, as the sibling mentioned, they monetize your visit through ads (and data use).
Copyright was supposed to protect expression and keep ideas freely circulating. But now it protects abstractions (see the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test). It is much more difficult to be sure you are not infringing.
Literally every AI model is trained on copyrighted etc data. And without any consequences.
VAT for content should be a thing. Ultimately all users should be getting paid
GPT-3 was trained on approximately 300 billion tokens. An small sized technical textbook might contain something like... 130,000 tokens? (1 token ~= 0.75 words, ~100k words in the book).
Thus, say you wrote a textbook on quantum mechanics that was included in the training corpus. A naive computation of the fraction of your textbook's contribution to the total number of training tokens would be 300B/130K = 0.0000004333333333, or 0.000043%.
If our hypothetical AI company here reported, say $500M in yearly profit, if all of that was distributed 100% based on our naive training token ratio (notice I say naive because it isn't as simple to say that every training token contributes equally to the final weights of a model. That is part of the magic.) then $500M * 0.000043% = $215.
You could imagine a simpler world where it was required by law that any such profitable company redistribute, say, %20 (taking the 'anti-VAT' idea) back to the copyright holders / originators of the training tokens. So, our fictitious QM textbook author would receive a check in the mail for $43 for that year of $500M in revenue. Not great, but not zero.
Since then, training corpuses are much, much larger, and most people's contributions would be much smaller. Someone who writes witty tweets? Maybe 1/100th the length of our above example in am model with now 100x the training corpus.
So fractions of a penny for your tweets. Maybe that is fitting after all...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here! It should be a default. Unfortunately, the very openness of the internet is now working against us.
Why should it be a default? Can you prove that training a model on data you wrote is not fair use? We're already seeing precedent that it might be. https://www.ecjlaw.com/ecj-blog/kadrey-v-meta-the-first-majo... The openness of the internet is a good thing, but it doesn't come without a cost. And the moment we have to pay that cost, we don't get to suddenly go, "well, openness turned out to be a mistake, let's close…
From the decision in 1841, in the US (Folsom vs Marsh):
> reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy
Further, to be "transformative", it is required that the new work is for a new purpose. It has to be done in such a way that it basically is not competing with the original at all.
Using my creative works, to create creative works, is rather clearly an act of piracy. And the methods engaged, to enable to do so, are also clearly piracy.
Where would training a model here, possibly be fair use?