If we hired guards and implemented security it will kill our banking industry.
Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
51–60 of 82 posts
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is clearly a net negative to humanity in its current form, and almost certainly all future forms. The fact that you refer to an actual human being as “some artist” betrays the absolute disdain you hold for humanity and in my opinion should disqualify you from polite discourse of any kind.
> AI is clearly a net negative to humanity in its current form, and almost certainly all future forms. I'm going to make an equally supported and valid statement here and say AI is clearly a net positive to humanity in its current form, and almost certainly all future forms. You should consider providing a less hyperbolic point to argue if you are looking to have any kind of productive or healthy discussion on the in…
Well thanks for the advice, but no, you are incorrect.
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
AIs are not creative, that's anthropomorphism. They use lossy compression to save training data. Later on, the compressed data is used to generate things that are potentially copyright violations (because they are very close to the original).
I don’t understand, generating (and then monetizing) things that are copyright violations is already illegal. What we’re taking about is suing the tool that could potentially be used to generate copyright violations. Which seems silly? Steelmanning your argument a bit more: OpenAI is selling the fact that you could potentially generate copyrightable material as a subscription, because the artwork is somewhere in the…
In a strict reading, the tool itself is a copyright violation. In that an LLM is the code and its weights, and the weights contain a lossy compressed copy of a copyrighted work.
Now you might say that's an overly rigid reading of copyright law, and I might agree, but that is nevertheless the reading of it applied to other domains - music, film and so on - where incorporating even a fractional, lossy and heavily processed portion of another work is enough to trigger copyright law. There is no blanket de-minimis that says "well, it's only 5%, so it's fair use".
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#54Copyright is long, but not infinite. There's little point in my opinion to permissions to train upon unless your purpose is to simply slow and postpone the inevitable.
I'd be more interested in getting AI companies training with publicly scraped datasets to have them available to other AI trainers for free. The load scrapers put on the web is out of control.
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
AIs are not creative, that's anthropomorphism. They use lossy compression to save training data. Later on, the compressed data is used to generate things that are potentially copyright violations (because they are very close to the original).
I don’t understand, generating (and then monetizing) things that are copyright violations is already illegal. What we’re taking about is suing the tool that could potentially be used to generate copyright violations. Which seems silly? Steelmanning your argument a bit more: OpenAI is selling the fact that you could potentially generate copyrightable material as a subscription, because the artwork is somewhere in the…
> OpenAI is selling the fact that you could potentially generate copyrightable material as a subscription, because the artwork is somewhere in the compressed data?
Yeah, that's the express and sole purpose of the tool. You use OpenAI image generation because you want something that looks like a stock image for your website. But you don't want to pay for a stock image because you're cheap. So you'll get a close enough approximation for free. Or, uh, less.
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels to me like you are the one arguing about something else. It doesn't matter if AI doesn't copy work wholesale or it can be viewed as how artists are inspired. AI companies use work that they do not have the rights for, to construct their products.
You don't need rights to view a work and caption it. You can walk into a library or gallery today and take your own notes on everything in there.
But this is very obviously not what AI is doing. In essence, an LLM is taking works and compressing them and storing them in a big database, to later be reproduced with a touch of non-determinism.
It's closer to archival and compression than captioning. But they're selling it. That's a big problem - you can't just take someone else's work, sprinkle some god knows what on it, throw it in a big pot with other shit you stole, and then reproduce it later. Even if your reproduction is super convoluted and not 100% accurate.
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI uses lossy compression of data to generate output that is potentially a copyright violation. Photoshop doesn't recommend a (mostly) straight reproduction of existing work, but an AI potentially does.
“Photoshop doesn't recommend” Neither does OpenAI? What about an empty chat prompt “encourages” copyright abuse?
The express and sole purpose of an LLM is to create output that can be found in it's input. That's what it does.
When you ask for a picture of a cup of wine, you're reproducing an image of a cup of wine that was using in training. Or, more accurately, hundreds of images sort of averaged together.
You can't say this isn't the intention because this is literally the singular use of LLM. They don't do anything else. They don't change your oil. They reproduce input. Just because you don't know exactly what the input was originally (and you, in fact, cannot find out) does not mean that isn't what it's doing.
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#58The title (at time of writing) omits the full quote in a way that becomes a glaring misquote. His quote in full has a very different meaning: > "And by the way if you did it in Britain and no one else did it, you would basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight." This is important to keep in mind. There are competing AI R&D orgs in dozens of different countries, not just America, China and France.
A lot of people seem to think AI development happens in a vacuum, but there are a lot of international implications to consider. Even if the US had some incredibly thorough process for ensuring everyone got paid for their AI additions, many nations would just straight-up steal the data anyways. So maybe in ChatGPT, you can’t ask for a studio ghibli-style photo, but in ChinaGPT (or what-have-you), it’ll work just fine…
China might do it, so we did it first. I love this logic, and another place to apply it is about when to use nuclear bombs.
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand, generating (and then monetizing) things that are copyright violations is already illegal. What we’re taking about is suing the tool that could potentially be used to generate copyright violations. Which seems silly? Steelmanning your argument a bit more: OpenAI is selling the fact that you could potentially generate copyrightable material as a subscription, because the artwork is somewhere in the…
> OpenAI is selling the fact that you could potentially generate copyrightable material as a subscription, because the artwork is somewhere in the compressed data? Yeah, that's the express and sole purpose of the tool. You use OpenAI image generation because you want something that looks like a stock image for your website. But you don't want to pay for a stock image because you're cheap. So you'll get a close enough…
"express and sole purpose of the tool"
Categorically untrue. 100% of all my usage of image generation is for artistic purposes that have nothing to do with the reproduction of or even the mimicry of existing art.
This is a gaping hole in the legal case if the lawyers need this to be true.
Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand, generating (and then monetizing) things that are copyright violations is already illegal. What we’re taking about is suing the tool that could potentially be used to generate copyright violations. Which seems silly? Steelmanning your argument a bit more: OpenAI is selling the fact that you could potentially generate copyrightable material as a subscription, because the artwork is somewhere in the…
In a strict reading, the tool itself is a copyright violation. In that an LLM is the code and its weights, and the weights contain a lossy compressed copy of a copyrighted work. Now you might say that's an overly rigid reading of copyright law, and I might agree, but that is nevertheless the reading of it applied to other domains - music, film and so on - where incorporating even a fractional, lossy and heavily proce…
The legality of Copyright material being present in the latent space of a commercialized foundation model would definitely be an interesting case!
Though most of these cases aren't litigating this. They are charging that the ability to recreate copyrightable material is the fault of the tool and not the tool user[1].