301–310 of 783 posts
Don't make it ethical question but understand its new frontier for humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree. Copying is fundamentally different than taking because the original source still retains their data. Copying cannot be categorized as theft in any sane society.
Ok, well it isn't in the US. Theft and copyright violations are entirely distinct laws here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. Because when you say you are “using” the song, what you mean is that you are distributing copies of the song, which is protected by copyright. When AI companies train on the song, the model is learning from it. Outside of the rare cases of memorisati…
I appreciate your comment, but you answered as if this question had been answered legally. It has not. The New York Times is suing both OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The Authors Guild is suing OpenAI. Getty Images is suing Stability AI. Disney is suing Midjourney. Universal Music Group and Sony have filed suits against multiple AI companies. > so copyright doesn’t get involved at all. The dozens of…
Your objection doesn’t make sense. In the event that an AI company loses a lawsuit for copyright infringement based on simply training on copyrighted works, the answer to you saying you’d like to understand why they can do it and you can’t is simply “your premise is wrong; neither of you can”.
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal
This is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.
This is really not so clear cut as "fair use" might cover 99% of all data scrapping; you are not reproducing the originals just use them to estimate probabilistic distribution of tokens in pre-training. You are never going to get the exact book word-for-word using LLMs.
I have no problem with taxing AI companies so that their profit is marginal, or forcing them to provide compute for free. That seems like the correct balance of what they're harvesting from the "commons" (which is really just the totality of private IP that was exposed to their crawlers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.
>> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. You do realize people created and shared things long before copyright became a thing, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trained on protected works. Do I need to pay royalties?
> I'm trained on protected works. That someone, at some point, paid for. I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. I'm not anti-AI. I'd just like to see companies play by the rules everyone else has to follow.
Because training isn't redistribution.
You can also listen to the song and make a new one that sounds similar, just like the AI can.
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal
This is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.
How do you explain the creative works of writing, music, and art that existed in the millennia of human history between the Mesopotamians and the Enlightenment era?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.
You should check out this thing called open source software
Open source actually demonstrates that copyright serves a purpose. There are still customers for non-open software, even when open alternatives exist, so the ability to monetize brings new offerings to the economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never been a problem with people ad-blocking for the last 20 years, why is it suddenly a problem now? We've been celebrating denying creators revenue for decades... Maybe this is just the internet hypocricy of "When I do it, it's good, when they do it, it's bad".
There is more to life than money. Many of the websites I read do not collect any appreciable amount of money from ads, or have no ads at all (one example: news.ycombinator.com :) ). They want a recognition, or to share the knowledge, or community, or they are building their brand... And AI is destroying this all - the first result of "zx80" is an AI overview with a link to wikipedia and some youtube videos. If person…
When you click "news.ycombinator.com" you are clicking on the ad.
:)