then perish
If I was exempt from copyright, I too could easily make oodles of money
How do you like my new song? I call it “while my guitar gently weeps” , a real banger. the B side is a little holiday ditty I put together all by myself called “White Christmas” .
Cool. If OpenAI gets a pass, then piracy should be legal, right? I mean what good is a trademark or copyright law?
Edit: “I can’t make money without stealing other people’s work” is definitely a take
No, see, piracy is just you downloading movies for yourself. To be like OpenAI you need to download it, put it in a pretty package with a bow, then sell it over and over again. Only when it’s piracy for profit do you get to beg and plead for a pass.
But I’m an aspiring artist, without pirating thousands of movies and TV shows, I’ll never make my ‘highly profitable’ magnum opus!
I’m an aspiring dead beat, with out food to provide basic biochemical energy I’ll never beat any dead.
You skipped a crucial step: first you gotta raise a few hundred million in VC funding from Silicon Valley bigwigs!
For profit that you can kick back a chunk of as campaign donations
You’re not repackaging and selling it on for profit tho. That’s different and thus illegal because reasons
Sounds like an argument slave owners would use. “My plantation can’t make money without free labor!”
“My private prison can’t make money without more overconvicted inmates!”
In any sane society, closing a private prison would be cause for celebration.
I can’t make money without using OpenAI’s paid products for free.
Checkmate motherfucker
“Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.”
exactly which “needs” are they trying to meet?
The needs of corpo CEOs trying to cut jobs
Their internal monetary needs ofc!
Sounds awesome, let’s lobby for shorter copyrights! ~30 years feels more than reasonable.
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law it simply is a criminal organisation. RICO act, anyone?
If a company cannot do business without breaking the law
I mean, which law? If Altman was selling shrooms or some blow that hasn’t been stepped on a dozen times, I might be willing to cut him some slack. At least that wouldn’t add a few million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere.
You wouldn’t download a collection of all the art and knowledge ever documented in the entire history of the known universe…
Boo fucking hoo. Everyone else has to make licensing agreements for this kind of shit, pay up.
Honestly, that sounds like a You problem, Sam.
It is impossible for my turnip soup business to make money if you enforce laws that make it illegal for me to steal turnips.
Paying for turnips is not realistic.
You bureaucrats don’t understand food.
More like I can’t sell photographs of turnips if I have to pay to take photos of them. Why should we have to pay to take photos of turnips when we never have had to ever?
They’re someone else’s turnips though, not yours. If you’re going to make money selling pictures of them, don’t you think the person who grew the turnips deserves a fair share of the proceeds?
Or from another perspective, if the person who grew them requests payment in return for you to take pictures of them, and you don’t want to pay it – why don’t you go find other turnips? Or grow your own?
These LLMs are an end product of capitalism – exploiting other people’s labor and creativity without paying them so you can get rich.
To answer your first question: No I don’t think the person growing turnip that I can see from the street should be compensated for the photograph I sell of that turnip. What next ? should we also compensate his parents for teaching him how to grow turnip, or his grandparent for teaching his parents ? What about the architect who designed the house next door that you can see in the background of the photograph ? Should the maker of the camera be compensated every time I take a picture ?..
Anyway back to AI:
I think though that the AI model resulting from freely accessing all images should also be fully open source and that anyone should be allowed to locally execute it on their own hardware. Let’s use this to push for the end of Intellectual property.
That’s a slippery slope fallacy. We can compensate the person with direct ownership without going through a chain of causality. We already do this when we buy goods and services.
I think the key thing in what you’re saying about AI is “fully open source… locally execute it on their own hardware”. Because if that’s the case, I actually don’t have any issues with how it uses IP or copyright. If it’s an open source and free to use model without any strings attached, I’m all for it using copyrighted material and ignoring IP restrictions.
My issue is with how OpenAI and other companies do it. If you’re going to sell a trained proprietary model, you don’t get to ignore copyright. That model only exists because it used the labor and creativity of other people – if the model is going to be sold, the people whose efforts went into it should get adequately compensated.
In the end, what will generative AI be – a free, open source tool, or a paid corporate product? That determines how copyrighted training material should be treated. Free and open source, it’s like a library. It’s a boon to the public. But paid and corporate, it’s just making undeserved money.
Funny enough, I think when we’re aligned on the nature and monetization of the AI model, we’re in agreement on copyright. Taking a picture of my turnips for yourself, or to create a larger creative project you sell? Sure. Taking a picture of my turnips to use in a corporation to churn out a product and charge for it? Give me my damn share.
Hey, me either. I guess I can steal too.
Some idea for others: If OpenAI wins, then use this case when you get busted for sellling bootleg Blu-Rays (since DVDs are long obsolete) from your truck.
Dvds still account for around half of physical media sales. Far from obsolete.
There’s no source in your comment so it’s taken with a pinch of salt. But I’m more amazed that DVDs are only half of physical sales. Unless Blu-ray is the other half of physical sales.
Here’s a source: https://lemmy.ml/post/19567861
- DVD: 55%
- Blu-ray: 26%
- UHD: 18%
Ah so it’s all disc format. I was worried tape was making a combat outside of storage.
I don’t know about you, but that’s my endgame, I want the end of Intellectual property, which in my opinion is the dumbest idea and the biggest scam of capitalism.
Here’s the problem: the big corpos also will gain this power, and with the brand recognition and their reach…
I stand by my opinion that learning systems training on copyrighted materials isn’t the problem, it’s companies super eager to replace human workers with automation (or replace skilled workers with cheaper, unskilled workers). The problem is, every worker not working is another adult (and maybe some kids) not eating and not paying rent.
(And for those of you soulless capitalists out there, people without food and shelter is bad. That’s a thing we won’t tolerate and start looking at you lean-and-hungry-like when it happens. That’s what gets us thinking about guillotines hungry for aristocrats.)
In my ideal world, everyone would have food, shelter, clothes, entertainment and a general middle-class lifestyle whether they worked or not, and intellectual-property temporary monopolies would be very short and we’d have a huge public domain. I think the UN wants to be on the same page as me, but the United States and billionaires do not.
All we’d have to worry about is the power demands of AI and cryptomining, which might motivate us to get pure-hydrogen fusion working. Or just keep developing solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power until everyone can run their AC and supercomputer.
I stand by my opinion that learning systems training on copyrighted materials isn’t the problem, it’s companies super eager to replace human workers with automation (or replace skilled workers with cheaper, unskilled workers).
I mean it’s the heart of the issue.
OpenAI isn’t even the big issue regarding this. It’s other companies that are developing and training specialized LLMs on their own employees. These companies have the capital to take the loss on the project because in their eyes it’ll eventually turn into a gain as long as they get it right eventually.
GPT and OpenAI is just a minor distraction in regards to what is being cooked up behind the scenes, but I still wouldn’t give them a free pass for that either.
This has nothing to do with copyright.
It does. If the AI firms lose, the laws around copyrights tighten and major copyright holders profit. If they win, they get to do what they please and nobody can stop them. Either way, the public loses.
Phh, people without food and work can go to the
VenusX-enus mining company.
“waaaaah please give us exemption so we can profit off of stolen works waaaaaaaahhhhhh”
