41–50 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'hitting the brakes' isnt feasible. If it's done through legislation, it will be circumvented or cause more damage than good.
> it will be circumvented How so? Circumvention would be illegal. Sure there might be a black market, but you couldn’t scale a real business off it.
If copyright law doesn’t take a massive leap forward in the next year, AI is going throw a wrench in our entire economy. The creative humans that trained these models deserve attribution, compensation, and royalties. The ongoing AI era is reminding me a lot of early Uber/AirBnB - these companies grew faster than local laws could keep up, and now we have millions of gig workers without insurance and housing crises in…
Copyright law isn't going to matter here. There are already models trained solely on owned or licensed content and there is more than enough funding to produce more. The big businesses dumping billions of dollars into AI have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips. I don't know that I personally know how we get to the ideal outcome here, but I see a lot of ways in which a copyright crackdown…
Any existing models will be irrelevant in 6 months. Regulations enacted today would provide a legal foundation for tomorrow’s models to abide to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright law isn't going to matter here. There are already models trained solely on owned or licensed content and there is more than enough funding to produce more. The big businesses dumping billions of dollars into AI have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips. I don't know that I personally know how we get to the ideal outcome here, but I see a lot of ways in which a copyright crackdown…
> The big businesses … have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips Agree. I’m not suggesting creative authors are attributed and receive royalties based on work generated in their style. I’m suggesting they get compensated for work generated from their training data - based on model weights. People need to get paid. Again, this is Uber/AirBnB all over again except it applies to literally ever…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'hitting the brakes' isnt feasible. If it's done through legislation, it will be circumvented or cause more damage than good.
> it will be circumvented How so? Circumvention would be illegal. Sure there might be a black market, but you couldn’t scale a real business off it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright law isn't going to matter here. There are already models trained solely on owned or licensed content and there is more than enough funding to produce more. The big businesses dumping billions of dollars into AI have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips. I don't know that I personally know how we get to the ideal outcome here, but I see a lot of ways in which a copyright crackdown…
> there are already models trained Any existing models will be irrelevant in 6 months. Regulations enacted today would provide a legal foundation for tomorrow’s models to abide to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are already models trained Any existing models will be irrelevant in 6 months. Regulations enacted today would provide a legal foundation for tomorrow’s models to abide to.
Do you have a sense of how much people tend to get paid for commercial art, stock photography, etc.? That's essentially the ceiling on what contributors to training datasets can expect going forward. Regulation isn't likely to be able to significantly influence that, at least not in the US.
And why would that be the ceiling? AI only expands their existing markets and revenue streams
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The big businesses … have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips Agree. I’m not suggesting creative authors are attributed and receive royalties based on work generated in their style. I’m suggesting they get compensated for work generated from their training data - based on model weights. People need to get paid. Again, this is Uber/AirBnB all over again except it applies to literally ever…
I don't think the question of rights conferred through training data is going to be resolved through copyright law. I think the availability of models trained exclusively on licensed data is going to bypass that controversy. People will get paid to contribute data but probably not a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it will be circumvented How so? Circumvention would be illegal. Sure there might be a black market, but you couldn’t scale a real business off it.
How is THC being 'legally' sold even in states where it is illegal? Government in the US has proven too inefficient to handle the speed of marketplace innovation. You can't outlaw ingenuity.
A much more fair comparison would be existing copyright law, which provides avenues for ownership without the ability to create new derivative works. It’s possible to expand these laws.
If copyright law doesn’t take a massive leap forward in the next year, AI is going throw a wrench in our entire economy. The creative humans that trained these models deserve attribution, compensation, and royalties. The ongoing AI era is reminding me a lot of early Uber/AirBnB - these companies grew faster than local laws could keep up, and now we have millions of gig workers without insurance and housing crises in…
> The creative humans that trained these models deserve attribution, compensation, and royalties. I would much rather give them nothing. They can participate in the system where we work for a living. Do useful things. People think everything is valuable. The Romans, in the end thought only the circus was important. Turns out you cant wear circus, you cant eat it, the circus makes non of the things we need. If you cou…
By definition, a royalty is the sharing of already realized value. We don’t need to imagine what value may be realized, so the Roman Circus analogy isn’t necessary or accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you explain why you think obsoleting the majority of commercial artists will "throw a wrench in our entire economy"? since you're addressing copyright law i'm assuming that's all you're addressing. this sounds like a very small number of people. for the economy as a whole, bringing down the cost of art is probably a positive. i understand the arguments about artistic value, but those are quite separate from yours…
> artists… a small number of people The vast majority of artists are working professionals doing the art grunt work, so it’s many more than you’d think (Millions) - not just those working for film/media/galleries. That said, these models won’t only replace artists. They can be trained to do most anything - jobs in marketing, legal, journalism, healthcare, software, etc are all at risk