Things are about to get worse for generative AI
garymarcus.substack.com
Things are about to get worse for generative AI
1–10 of 769 posts
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#2I imagine the argument might be like this:
I hire a session musician to play on my new single, paying him $100. I record the whole session.
I ask him to play the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" and he does so.
"Well, I can't use that as a sample without paying"
"Ok play something like Jimmy Page"
"Hmm, still sounds like Stairway to Heaven"
"Ok, try and sound less like Stairway to Heaven but in that style"
"Great, I'll use that one"
and I release my song and get $5,000 in royalties.
Should I be sued for infringement, or the guitarist?
The problem, I suppose, is that if I had said "play something like 70s prog rock" and he played "Stairway to Heaven" and I didn't know what it was and said "great, I'll use that".
Should I be sued for infringement, or the guitarist?
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#3This perspective on regulation was interesting: https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2023/12/28/how-to-regulate-...
"Congress should declare that big-data AI models do not infringe copyright, but are inherently in the public domain.
Congress should declare that use of AI tools will be an aggravating rather than mitigating factor in determinations of civil and criminal liability."Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#4I imagine the argument might be like this: I hire a session musician to play on my new single, paying him $100. I record the whole session. I ask him to play the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" and he does so. "Well, I can't use that as a sample without paying" "Ok play something like Jimmy Page" "Hmm, still sounds like Stairway to Heaven" "Ok, try and sound less like Stairway to Heaven but in that style" "Great, I'l…
You are sued for infringement if you are the rightsholder. You need an agreement with the guitarist about rights. The default agreement for session musicians is that you pay them in return for their rights.
It’s like a software engineering contractor. The contractor gets paid, the IP of their work is owned by the company.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#5(Asking Dall-E about the bot image in the article)
Me: Who owns the rights to this bot?
Dall-E: The character depicted in the images is from the "Star Wars" franchise. The rights to characters and elements from "Star Wars" are owned by Lucasfilm Ltd., which is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.
Perhaps it is able to tell, if you ask it?
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#6I imagine the argument might be like this: I hire a session musician to play on my new single, paying him $100. I record the whole session. I ask him to play the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" and he does so. "Well, I can't use that as a sample without paying" "Ok play something like Jimmy Page" "Hmm, still sounds like Stairway to Heaven" "Ok, try and sound less like Stairway to Heaven but in that style" "Great, I'l…
But it's not like that. Examples of clearly infringing prompts in TFA were as vague as "animated plumber".
Asking your session musician for something "melancholy" and having them pass off Stairway to Heaven as original would be unreasonable.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#7I imagine the argument might be like this: I hire a session musician to play on my new single, paying him $100. I record the whole session. I ask him to play the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" and he does so. "Well, I can't use that as a sample without paying" "Ok play something like Jimmy Page" "Hmm, still sounds like Stairway to Heaven" "Ok, try and sound less like Stairway to Heaven but in that style" "Great, I'l…
You, because you released the song and took the royalties? I don’t think every type of art can be compared against each other though, as there have been numerous precedents specifically for music, some for paintings, and some for photography with their own nuances.
I still think people who are concerned that art related copyright will stifle generative AI should fight copyright laws directly. But that’s a harder pill to swallow since it will cause multi-industry wide havoc.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#8> My guess is that none of this can easily be fixed. Systems like DALL-E and ChatGPT are essentially black boxes. GenAI systems don’t give attribution to source materials because at least as constituted now, they can’t.
Is it necessary to fix in the model itself? It seems a gate in the post processing pipeline that checks for copyright infringement could work, provided they can create another model that identifies copyrighted work (solving the problems of AI with more AI :/)
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#9(Asking Dall-E about the bot image in the article) Me: Who owns the rights to this bot? Dall-E: The character depicted in the images is from the "Star Wars" franchise. The rights to characters and elements from "Star Wars" are owned by Lucasfilm Ltd., which is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Perhaps it is able to tell, if you ask it?
Dall-E on the "animated sponge": The rights to the character depicted in the images, which is reminiscent of SpongeBob SquarePants, are owned by Nickelodeon, a subsidiary of ViacomCBS. The character is from the animated television series "SpongeBob SquarePants," created by Stephen Hillenburg.
Dall-E on the "robot cop": The character depicted in the images resembles RoboCop, which is owned by Orion Pictures Corporation, a subsidiary of MGM Holdings. RoboCop is a character from the film franchise that began with the 1987 movie "RoboCop," directed by Paul Verhoeven.
Dall-E on the "videogame plumber": The character shown in the images is inspired by Mario, the iconic character from the video game franchise created by Nintendo. The rights to Mario and related intellectual property are owned by Nintendo Co., Ltd.
All of these are in the first go. No retries or rephrasings of the question.
Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI
#10I predict this could be a boon for generative AI because restricting it to training on copyright-expired media would produce a higher quality training corpus, as low-quality material from so long ago is unlikely to have been preserved, leaving only higher-quality material.