Attribution weights could be the basis of new type of copyright asset licensing scheme.
For all those tech employees who fed the company's model, a license in perpetuity to at least a portion of that value...but only if you fight for it. They are training to replace you, watching your every move, your thought processes, ready to make you a function call.
Things are about to get worse for generative AI
21–30 of 769 posts
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#22Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
I do. If the incentive to actually create is gone.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#23Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
I can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#24Aren't some of the examples basically asking for that content?
Ask someone about two Italian brothers in a video game with a red and green hat that have M and L on them. What do you think you would get?
If I describe "imagine a comic book duck that swims in a sea of gold in his vault" you would immediately think of Scrooge McDuck, no?
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#25This for me does not make sense as a copyright violation. It’s like saying that Adobe is in trouble because you drew something infringing in Photoshop. If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.
Did you read the article? It shows a lot of examples when no specific names are mentioned, or even with very generic prompts producing copyrighted material.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#26This for me does not make sense as a copyright violation. It’s like saying that Adobe is in trouble because you drew something infringing in Photoshop. If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.
> If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.
Yeah but that is not the case, they never mentioned Mario and Luigi, yet, that's what the output turned out to be.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#27Perhaps we should simply take this as an opportunity to finally abolish copyright. Smaller artists mainly earn their money with commissions. They are paid to do a very specific thing. Whether there is a copyright on the result is irrelevant. Someone else who would "steal" the image and use it without payment would apparently have fewer requirements. The person could have simply taken any AI image. Therefore, the artist in the scenario would not receive any money from the second person anyway.
Apart from this, it is mainly large companies that benefit from copyright laws. Why should we have laws that restrict progress just so large capitalist companies can maximize their profits?
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#28This for me does not make sense as a copyright violation. It’s like saying that Adobe is in trouble because you drew something infringing in Photoshop. If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.
This is an interesting idea. I assume that while the protected material would be obvious in some case, in many it would not. Would the tool have to be able to identify (and properly attribute) copyrighted material in its output?
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#29Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
I can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.
> and the people in it are politically better connected.
reply
Tech companies have more money to throw at politicians.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#30[deleted]