To me that’s the wrong question. Everyone knew it was trained on copyrighted material and capable of eerily similar outputs. But it’s already done. At scale. Large corps committing fully. There is no chance of that toothpaste going back in the tube. It’s a bit like when big tech built on aggressive user data harvesting. Whether it’s right, ethical or even legal is academic at this stage. They just did it - effectivel…
Napster hit scale too.
F500 companies didn't integrate Napster into their software and data stacks left and right.
So, whats the plan? Content creators/artists compete globally. The only thing harsh regulations will do is create an unlevel playing field where artists from noncaring countries will have big advantages over artists from the west, which will be driven into illegality to compete. In the end products will have to be classified anyway if they are infringing on copyright and/or were being built by an LLM. Most likely aut…
Wouldn't the ones in the West with presumably stronger copyright laws be in a better position, since the trillion dollar megacorporations using their works have to actually pay them, whereas in places where copyright is ignored those creators just get all their shit stolen without credit even being given?
It’s more interesting to me how these entities that operate the models start making money from them. They are a money pit and there’s not enough $20/month subscribers on earth to support them.
Enterprises that make content with this also don’t want to infringe on copyright. The AI companies don’t have a good story here. The value has not become evident after years.
If a child is instructed to read a copyrighted work at school, which later becomes a factor in his own derivative works, he won't be in breach of copyright. Why should other intelligent entities be prevented from reading copyrighted works and gaining whatever there is to gain from those works the way any human might?
If the child / author then regurgitates entire paragraphs or sections verbatim in his own works and someone notices, you bet there will be a plagiarism lawsuit coming his way.
Wouldn’t this be well handled by suing the person that prompted and distributed the results?
Or... 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.
This is not about copyright. Think about it. Would you ever actually use generative AI to pirate something when you could just torrent it? While there may be an argument that generative AI is infringing copyright, it is not really a very good tool for it. And there is a worldwide piracy industry already causing much more financial damage due to infringement. This is really about replacement. The copyright holders in…
Even if this is right, its a shitty consolation. These llms aren't ever going to be an agent of greater democratic, every-man content creation or whatever, its just going to be the transfer of capital from one type of huge company to another. Not much of a future, even if it feels cool for a bit.
I might be a bit idealistic, but I've always believed that the core purpose of art and publishing should be to influence culture and society, not just to make a heap of money. That's why I feel original work needs its protection, but it should enter the public domain much sooner to fuel creativity and inspiration. We should be thinking in terms of a few years for this transition, not decades.
Why should art be subject to these rules and not everything else?
OP said art and publishing, which would include anything from software, music, books and so on.
If a child is instructed to read a copyrighted work at school, which later becomes a factor in his own derivative works, he won't be in breach of copyright. Why should other intelligent entities be prevented from reading copyrighted works and gaining whatever there is to gain from those works the way any human might?
This argument might hold more water when generative models are more than fancy compression algorithms/text completion engines. A more practical way of looking at this is: who is making money off of these models? How did they get their training data? I’m not a fan of copyright in general, but we have serious outstanding issues with companies and organizations stealing or plastering work without compensating the origin…
> I’m not a fan of copyright in general, but we have serious outstanding issues with companies and organizations stealing or plastering work without compensating the original creators of said works.
Would you mind unpacking this one a bit? It sounds like you denigrate copyright (some "general" grievance) but then immediately execute an about-face and begin to extoll its virtues. Is copyright not the thing that allows us to share works without fear they'll be stolen?
If a child is instructed to read a copyrighted work at school, which later becomes a factor in his own derivative works, he won't be in breach of copyright. Why should other intelligent entities be prevented from reading copyrighted works and gaining whatever there is to gain from those works the way any human might?
If llms are intelligent entities legally equivalent to a human child, then they incur an even more serious legal problem, as we are all in violation of the 13th amendment.
An argument I've seen made in pro of AI in past threads about this is that "scraping is legal." Yeah, downloading the content of a webpage may be legal, but redistributing it isn't. I wish people stopped trying to make these things seem more important than they really are just because IT people call them "technologies". Blockchain isn't a technology. HTML isn't a technology. React isn't a technology. And AI is now no…
> All that amazing capability of generative AI? That got old fast. It was groundbreaking for one instant. Now it's just an app that generates images. Just another piece of software. Nothing special about it.
Speak for yourself, personally I find it still groundbreaking and while the magic won't last forever, it is and will remain groundbreaking especially considering that technological progress and development will continue way beyond what we have today.