11 ms·
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 cop
by Intox 3y ago
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.
- pc86 3y agoWell if it would stupid and economically deleterious to do it, you can count on the EU to at least talk about doing it, if not actually doing it.
- wwweston 3y agoMan, that's great that state of the art has advanced to the point where models can be trained on just a few copyrighted sources.
- lewhoo 3y agoI do. If the incentive to actually create is gone.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agocreation should happen for its own sake. You don't see GMs stopping chess because bots are that much better.
- rco8786 3y agocreation <> competition. I agree with your premise but the chess analogy falls flat. We might, legitimately, see an enormous dropoff in people creating original works of literary, musical, and visual art (without AI).
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoChess, at some point, and after you move beyond the opening, is creation. People didn't stop painting because photography exists, they created new forms of photography. People didn't stop writing music or using new / unique instruments when synths and programs came along. I genuinely believe that people will keep creating, it's in our nature, and we also like things made by other humans, because we can relate to them.
- lewhoo 3y agoImho your argument is faulty at its base. The objective of chess competition isn't to produce a reasonably good game for the lowest possible cost (blunders and comebacks are actually pretty valuable parts of the spectacle). It also isn't the reason why chess players get paid. Yes, running still was a thing even after the invention of bicycle. This is just invalid logic in my opinion.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoChess hustlers in central park don't play for money, or for a competition, they play for the fun of it, for the sake of chess itself, for the sake of exploring the game, the thrill of finding a solution. It has nothing to do with whatever "value" the capitalist system assigns to the act as a side-effect.
- lewhoo 3y agoChess hustlers are a particular niche case and I think many of them would disagree with you (the money part). Making arguments in such an absolute manner and speaking on behalf of many people (mostly with whom you share very little I assume) is guaranteed to be wrong I think.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y agoThis is an centuries old argument. Most people don’t create to make money, they create because they __have__ to. If those motivated purely by money stop creating little of value will be lost
- rco8786 3y agoI didn’t say anything about money or the motivation to create?
- krapp 3y agoMost people who create for a living aren't motivated purely by money, but are driven by the necessities of capitalism to do so. You're presenting a false dichotomy, pretending to care about the quality of art, but really like everyone, you just want other people's work for free. Great art - especially in modern times when that art involves expensive education (which if you're American must be paid for with interest) and the incorporation of technology and equipment - takes time and effort. If that time and effort cannot be paid for, then no matter how passionate an artist may be, unless they have sufficient personal wealth, that art must suffer. Even the great artists of old needed patrons, because they needed to eat like anyone else. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for the love of the game, nor would he have. I guarantee you that the working artists who have already lost commissions and work due to AI care about their craft.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y agoIm happy to pay the artist directly - which is why I use services like bandcamp or buy artworks directly from artists I know personally. I care little about paying „rightsholders“ and their ilk - so I have zero empathy if they complain about imagined losses. Don’t jump to conclusions about people who have never even talked to
- krapp 3y agoArtists are "rightsholders" and their ilk. You didn't even separate the two in your former comment, so you clearly weren't talking about corporate owners of IP like Sony and Disney, exclusively. Maybe you believe no artist who works for a corporation has any motivation but money, as opposed to purely "indie" artists, I don't know where the line in your head is drawn, but you do seem willing to throw most artists under the bus for some arbitrary standard of purity. AI is harming working artists right now, and will likely never harm corporate rightsholders. They'll simply run their own AIs and fire as many people as they can get away with. The end result will not be that only the "true" artists survive but simply less art of any kind, everywhere. So I stand by my comment.
- lewhoo 3y ago> creation should happen for its own sake Creation should happen for whatever reason its creator becomes inspired with. The only absolute I can think of is no one should actually categorize worthy and unworthy motifs.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoI can categorize them easily. The only invalid reason is because you need to feed yourself, and the fact that we need to do that, we need to pay artists and everyone else just to survive, shows our failure as broader society.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y agoIf making money is the only reason to create maybe it’s good if they stop.
- lewhoo 3y agoOh yeah, I forgot artists are spiritual creatures who don't have to eat. It certainly isn't the only reason to create but a necessary condition to actually be a professional artist, no ?
- ImHereToVote 3y agoWhy don't you just ask for an increase in the allowance from your family trust fund? People have become so lazy nowadays, they can't even be bothered to have a hard talk about their financial estate with their rich grand-papá anymore.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y agoReread my comment again. If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem. I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.
- Loughla 3y ago>There are many tried and proven alternatives. Other than patronage, what is there? Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.
- ED_Radish 3y agocopyright based scarcity is effectively dead for anyone with an Internet connection anyway honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too* I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money. *(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )
- jltsiren 3y agoI can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.
- sumedh 3y ago> and the people in it are politically better connected. reply Tech companies have more money to throw at politicians.
- midasuni 3y agoApple could buy most of the NYT, RIAA and MPAA companies combined with petty cash. The big ones are Disney and Sony with a combined market cap about 250b. Microsoft alone is worth over 10 times that.
- prasadjoglekar 3y agoThen they should. The first transaction will appropriately value content and then WaPo, WSJ and others will see their values to up.
- captn3m0 3y agoWould be cheaper to license textbooks and find a way to provide attribution to accommodate Wikipedia etc.
- CM30 3y agoHonestly I've always wondered what would happen (and how much the entertainment world would change) if a company like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc did just that. Or heck, if it turns out you need the rights to train LLMs and its easier to do that with public domain stuff, they just flat out bought half the entertainment industry and assigned everything to the public domain. Every Disney work every for example.
- jprete 3y agoNo-one is going to buy a major media company and then throw the rights into the public domain. What they would do is buy the rights and then sue all competitors in the GenAI space.
- anonzzzies 3y agoIt’s one way of getting China to close the gap as they don’t care.
- Smaug123 3y agoEh? With a gun to my head I'd say the CCP cares more about censorship than the NYT does about plagiarism, but it's not an easy call. The problems are the same ("training set contains lots of stuff I don't want the LLM to say").
- wongarsu 3y agoOne interesting nuance that might come to play is that while the US nearly always makes products for their own market and expects the rest of the world to adopt it, China is willing to clearly differentiate products for their own market and for export. As a consequence, an AI meant to topple Western soft power around the world might be held to much looser standards than one used domestically. Who cares that in rare circumstances the AI mentions the Tiananmen Square Massacre to Spaniards if asked about it, as long as it is good enough at spreading Chinese culture.
- rco8786 3y agoThe EU is already salivating over the idea
- CaptainFever 3y agoThe EU and many other countries already exempted training from copyright restrictions. The only condition EU added was opt-out, and even then it can be ignored if you're doing research. [1] [1] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/ai-in-entertainment-and-media/2023/06/text-and-data-mining-around-the-globe https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/ai-in-entertainmen...
- pier25 3y agoChatGPT is not research, it's a commercial service.
- devnonymous 3y agoAh right, capitalism hasn't ever come in the way of the steady march of technology. This is the reason why we don't have monopolies controlling energy generation. Nor are we limited to a couple of choices of OSs or phones...etc and books, art, movies, music consumption and creation are perfectly aligned... Right? /s IMO, what's most likely is some sort of licensing model between the AI companies and the 'big content providers' (remember most content on the web these days is not owned by the person who created it, wasn't always like that). The smaller companies then would be forced to live with either being scraped or ending up being 'invisible'.
- numpad0 3y agoI think in more simpler terms, I think we're looking at the dip after the hype. This is the peak for this generation of proto-AGI and there's not much to lose from over-regulatuon(put quotes around "over").
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago> a few copyright holders By which you mean every copyright holder. > AGI in the near future Something that is purely speculative, undefined, and has been promised in the near future for 50+ years. I don't see copyright holders lying down for someone else's benefit and I don't see governments gutting copyright, contract law, and several other avenues of protection that copyright holders can deploy in the name of something that doesn't exist and may not ever exist.
- squidbeak 3y agoIf 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?
- RandomLensman 3y agoHumans and machines are regulated and viewed differently all the time.
- dingnuts 3y agothats irrelevant since an LLM is not an intelligent entity. Whatever you're arguing about is fiction.
- block_dagger 3y agoChatGPT is not an intelligent entity? What’s been comprehending and rewriting all my crappy code for several months? An auto-complete? There’s obviously emergent behavior there that is actually defined by the maker and most users as “intelligence.” Edit: typo
- SoftTalker 3y agoI would paraphrase one of Clarke's laws and say that "Any sufficiently advanced text generator is indistinguishable from an intelligent entity." Just because a computer program's output is remarkably good does not mean there is any emergent intelligence, any more than a technology we don't understand means there is magic.
- vinni2 3y ago> I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future It’s already happening with EU AI Act https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/202...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Kubuxu 3y agoAFAIK the EU AI Act primarily prevents profiling, social scoring and other high risk activities from using AI. It generally didn’t care about generative AI.
- intended 3y agoOne wishes. The internet we live in is the one shaped by the MPAA and RIAA. I have nothing against creators, they deserve to get paid. For what its worth, LLMs are facing the coke vs Pepsi challenge, and sadly they are most definitely Pepsi.
- fallingknife 3y agoThis 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 the content industry aren't really afraid of LLMs infringing on past copyright, but are terrified of it replacing them on future work, and there is absolutely no legal protection from this. The lawsuit might officially be about copyright, but that's just because it is their only available legal angle of attack.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 3y ago> 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. How do you square this with literally the first image in the OP showing side by side GPT reproing copyrighted work? imo a good modern art project would be someone making a website that “archives” NYT articles by laundering them through GPT rather than using the archive link that everyone posts to get around the paywall. Even HN guidelines bend over backwards to allow bypassing the paywall by allowing these links.
- fallingknife 3y agoHere is a picture of Darth Vader: https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/darth-vader-main_4560aff7.jpeg https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/darth-vader-main_45... Please show me a prompt that reproduces it. Also to pass this test, it has to be just as easy as right clicking "download image" The images in the article are done in reverse. They find a prompt that shows a copyrighted character and then search for the matching image. That's not how piracy is done.
- madamelic 3y agoThey are also being deceptive in my opinion. They should show their entire chat because if you take "animated sponge", it alone does not generate SpongeBob. The author almost certainly further prodded & guided the DALL-E to generate those images. The author, I believe, is being purposefully deceptive and hoping people who don't use DALL-E see "animated sponge" generating a SpongeBob look-alike and think they should be burned.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoYeah, I really don’t see everyone else giving up here because “funny magic parrot box” can write some mid-tier high school essays. LLM people are really starting to veer into crypto-bro territory with the evangelising about how they’re the best thing since sliced bread and transistors.
- EMM_386 3y ago> “funny magic parrot box” can write some mid-tier high school essays That's your take on LLMs? Ask it how it is possible for a photon to travel across the universe, arriving at the same time it departed, resulting in the journey taking zero time (in its reference frame). Ask what implications are if certain viral amino sequences result in messenger RNA translocating to the host cell nucleus, potentially with the entire genome. Ask if aircraft fly due to Bernoulli's Principle or Newton's Third Law and physical impact. This is "crypto-bro territory"? No, not quite.
- sensanaty 3y agoAnd it parroting answers back at you from textbooks and papers that are most definitely in its training data, probably with the identical wording you're using, is proof to the contrary of it being a "magic parrot box" as the other person put it? Or do you genuinely believe ChatGPT, a LLM, actually "came up" with these answers on its own?
- wussboy 3y agoThe answers to all of those questions would be parroted from other research, and to the extent they were novel they would be incorrect.
- jcgrillo 3y agoThe "crypto-bro" behavior I see is a whole bunch of people burning a ton of calories wildly casting about for industrial applications of what amounts to nothing more than a neat (albeit eye-wateringly expensive) toy. These LLMs seem like a solution in search of a problem in just the same way that blockchains are. Please prove me wrong, I'd really love to be wrong about this!
- xtracto 3y agoGood. It's time to abolish copyright. Society must create distributed, open and uncensorable AI models that can synthesize humanity's knowledge so that it can be used by anyone. Sorry if your 40 hour work won't pay you $10 bucks a month forever. That's the case for most of the rest of us: we produce for 40 hours, we get paid for those 40 hours, regardless of what we do. Welcome to the club!!
- madamelic 3y agoCopyright should be the problem of the person using the works and not the problem of the AI generating it. Unless Nintendo plans on busting down the doors of every person who tries to draw Mario or preventing little Timmy from making a parody of Coca-Cola, making it where AI cannot generated copyrighted works is insane imo. Those brands should be proud to be such a big part of the cultural fabric that it is difficult to get away from their branding. Plus it's not infringement to my knowledge until you use it for commercial purposes so as long as no one as creating Lario and Muigi to sell or otherwise use in business, it's no different than drawing it yourself. If the AI is completely unable to generate non-infringing works even if you are _trying_ to get away from it (which the author very much doesn't seem they are, they are purposefully making and show prompts that infringe), that's the problem of the AI creator then.
- outside1234 3y agoThe thing is: OpenAI and Microsoft have indemnified their users - so their users problems are their problems.
- tsumnia 3y agoWhen I cover generative AI in my Ethics in AI lecture, one of few soapbox opinions I give is that GenAI is doing essentially what people do - copy others. Picasso has a quote about "Good Artists copy, Great Artists steal", which doesn't mean try to pass Lario and Muigi off as your own, but rather that great artists are able to take aspects from other works (also called 'inspiration') without being caught. My personality is a combination of elements taken from Jim Carrey, Robin Williams, and King of the Deathmatch Mick Foley. I like making vector graphics based on pictures. I have a folder on my computer called "Website Ideas" that's just screenshots of UIs that I've come across that I really like. I also point to a YouTube video by Kirby Ferguson "Everything is a Remix" [1] which talks about how so much of our collective culture stems from copy. It's a great video if you have an hour. When Little Timmy crayons a copy of Mario, we congratulate him for his creativity. Is it unique, one of a kind art? Well Timmy made it, but he didn't think up the original idea of a video game plumber. I give this view to GenAI right now - it's not capable of achieving that "next step" in "original design", but its performing like a novice artist/musician, it's mimicking what it sees. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9RYuvPCQUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9RYuvPCQUA
- belter 3y agoMaybe there is a middle ground that can be navigated. Keeping filters on. Interestingly, AWS is offering defense against copyright claims under the Service Terms although with some conditions. https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ See items as of 50.10 and 50.10.1 that I reproduce here: "50.10. Defense of Claims and Indemnity for Indemnified Generative AI Services. AWS Services may incorporate generative AI features and provide Generative AI Output to you. “Generative AI Output” means output generated by a generative artificial intelligence model in response to inputs or other data provided by you. “Indemnified Generative AI Services” means, collectively, generally available features of Amazon CodeWhisperer Professional, Amazon Titan Text Express, Amazon Titan Text Lite, Amazon Titan Text Embeddings, Amazon Titan Multimodal Embeddings, AWS HealthScribe, Amazon Personalize, Amazon Connect Contact Lens, and Amazon Lex. The following terms apply to the Indemnified Generative AI Services: 50.10.1. Subject to the limitations in this Section 50.10, AWS will defend you and your employees, officers, and directors against any third-party claim alleging that the Generative AI Output generated by an Indemnified Generative AI Service infringes or misappropriates that third party’s intellectual property rights, and will pay the amount of any adverse final judgment or settlement."
- ctxSw1tch 3y ago[dead]
- tmaly 3y agoWhat if that example of the production of NYT article under the hood is ChatGPT just fetching a fast cache of the article then paraphrasing it. How would that be any different than Google displaying some type of news headline?
- j45 3y agoThat might be like a buzzfeed summary of an article.
- iwontberude 3y agoExactly my thought, if the only way generative AI works is to break copyright I can see people choosing generative AI.
- theptip 3y agoQuite the contrary, NYT is long adjacent to the levers of power, and “Big Tech” is unpopular with both parties. The public is generally wary of job destruction and other harms from AI, and doesn’t grok even the present value. It’s politically 100% viable to kneecap AI with copyright restrictions. This will go to the Supreme Court and it’s far from clear whether fair use applies to every case here.
- BobaFloutist 3y agoAnd supporters of AI aren't really making a case that's likely to persuade skeptics, they're just regurgitating "It learns like a human" "It doesn't store the info, just the recipe for making it" and completely failing to address that we've decided it's not ok for someone to regurgitate protected works with 100% accuracy, and that artists don't want people to train AI on their works without permission. There's a way to sell this to the public, but AI proponents don't want to have to sell it, because they feel that they shouldn't have to, and there's an underlying theme of "The benefit of AI is so overwhelming, and eventually it will replace most commodified creative work anyway so why bother litigating this now, let's just skip this messy step and get to that part" and that's super not going to work to convince skeptics.
- BobaFloutist 3y agoHow on earth is this hypothetical?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- beltsazar 3y ago> Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. If that's so, things are about to get worse for everyone, too. With little to no protection against AI, no one will be incentivized to create new IPs, whether they're books, drawings, songs. Or even films and games, when AI is able to also generate those in the (possibly near) future.