That’s a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you’re the arsehole. ;)
Not only that, but their business model doesn’t hold up if they were required to provide their model weights for free because the material that went into it was “free”.
There’s also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn’t be a business.
No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it’s the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.
Businesses relying on free things. Logging, mining, ranching, and oil come to mind. Extracting free resources of the land belonging to the public, destroying those public lands and selling those resources back to the public at an exorbitant markup.
You misspelled capitalism.
Unregulated capitalism. That’s why people in dominant market positions want less regulation.
Entrenched companies often want more regulation to prevent startup competition. Pulling the ladder up behind them.
To be fair, they want more regulation n others, not on them. Specially if they’re doing shady things.
Extracting free resources of the land
Not to be contrarian, but there is a cost to extract those “free” resources; like labor, equipment, transportation, lobbying (AKA: bribes for the non-Americans), processing raw material into something useful, research and development, et cetera.
Was about to post the same thing
deleted by creator
If basic economics get you upset, then alright.
Bye o/
The entire internet is built on free things.
Just saying.
Doesn’t mean that businesses should allowed to be.
Agribusiness in shambles after draining the water table (it is still free)
even the top phds can learn things off the amount of books that openai could easily purchase, assuming they can convince a judge that if the works aren’t pirated the “learning” is fair use. however, they’re all pirating and then regurgitating the works which wouldn’t really be legal even if a human did it.
also, they can’t really say how they need fair use and open standards and shit and in the next breathe be begging trump to ban chinese models. the cool thing about allowing china to have global influence is that they will start to respect IP more… or the US can just copy their shit until they do.
imo that would have been the play against tik tok etc. just straight up we will not protect the IP of your company (as in technical IP not logo, etc.) until you do the same. even if it never happens, we could at least have a direct tik tok knock off and it could “compete” for american eyes rather than some blanket ban bullshit.
This particular vein of “pro-copyright” thought continuously baffles me. Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
Its totally valid to hate these AI companies. But its absolutely just industry propaganda to think that copyright was protecting your data on your behalf
Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.
What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn’t take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don’t need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.
That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don’t get to say no.
modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul.
https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf
This research paper from Rufus Pollock in 2009 suggests that the optimal timeframe for copyright is 15 years. I’ve been referencing this for, well, 16 years now, a year longer than the optimum copyright range. If I recall correctly I first saw this referenced by Mike Masnick of techdirt.
Copyright does not give the holder control over every “use”, especially something as vague as “using it to undermine their skillset”.
Copyright gives the rights holder a limited monopoly on three activities: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly.
Not all uses involve making a copy, derivative, or performance.
Bingo. I was being more general in my response, but that is the more technical way of putting it.
Gatekeeping absolutely was the intention of copyright, not to provide artists with income.
By gatekeeping I mean the use of digital methods to verify or restrict use of purchased copyright material after a sale such as Digital rights management, encryption such as CSS/AACS/HDCP, or obfuscation.
The whole “you didn’t buy a copy, you bought a license” BS undermines what copyright was supposed to be IMO.
Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
Wrong in all points.
Copyright has paid artists (though maybe not enough). Copyright was intended to do that (though maybe not that alone). Copyright does currently pay artists (maybe not in your country, I don’t know that).
Wrong in all points.
No, actually, I’m not at all. In-fact, I’m totally right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
Copyright originated create a monopoly to protect printers, not artists, to create a monopoly around a means of distribution.
How many artists do you know? You must know a few. How many of them have received any income through copyright. I dare you, to in good faith, try and identify even one individual you personally know, engaged in creative work, who makes any meaningful amount of money through copyright.
I know quite a few people who rely on royalties for a good chunk of their income. That includes musicians, visual artists and film workers.
Saying it doesn’t exist seems very ignorant.
Cool. What artists?
Any experienced union film director, editor, DOP, writer, sound designer comes to mind (at least where I’m from)
Cool. Name one. A specific one that we can directly reference, where they themselves can make that claim. Not a secondary source, but a primary one. And specifically, not the production companies either, keeping in mind that the argument that I’m making is that copyright law, was intended to protect those who control the means of production and the production system itself. Not the artists.
The artists I know, and I know several. They make their money the way almost all people make money, by contracting for their time and services, or through selling tickets and merchandise, and through patreon subscriptions: in other words, the way artists and creatives have always made their money. The “product” in the sense of their music or art being a product, is given away practically for free. In fact, actually for free in the case of the most successful artists I know personally. If they didn’t give this “product” of their creativity away for free, they would not be able to survive.
There is practically 0 revenue through copyright. Production companies like Universal make money through copyright. Copyright was also built, and historically based intended for, and is currently used for, the protection of production systems: not artists.
You forgot to link a legitimate source.
A lecture from a professional free software developer and activist whose focus is the legal history and relevance of copyright isn’t a legitimate source? His website: https://questioncopyright.org/promise/index.html
The anti-intelectualism of the modern era baffles me.
Also, he’s on the fediverse!
YouTube is not a legitimate source. The prof is fine but video only links are for the semi literate. It is frankly rude to post a minor comment and expect people to endure a video when a decent reader can absorb the main points from text in 20 seconds.
Removed by mod
Interesting copyright question: if I own a copy of a book, can I feed it to a local AI installation for personal use?
Can a library train a local AI installation on everything it has and then allow use of that on their library computers? <— this one could breathe new life into libraries
First off, I’m by far no lawyer, but it was covered in a couple classes.
According to law as I know it, question 1 yes if there is no encryption, and question 2 no.
In reality, if you keep it for personal use, artists don’t care. A library however, isn’t personal use and they have to jump through more hoops than a circus especially when it comes to digital media.
But you raise a great point! I’d love to see a law library train AI for in-house use and test the system!
No, it means that copyrights should not exist in the first place.
I’m fine with this. “We can’t succeed without breaking the law” isn’t much of an argument.
Do I think the current copyright laws around the world are fine? No, far from it.
But why do they merit an exception to the rules that will make them billions, but the rest of us can be prosecuted in severe and dramatic fashion for much less. Try letting the RIAA know you have a song you’ve downloaded on your PC that you didn’t pay for - tell them it’s for “research and training purposes”, just like AI uses stuff it didn’t pay for - and see what I mean by severe and dramatic.
It should not be one rule for the rich guys to get even richer and the rest of us can eat dirt.
Figure out how to fix the laws in a way that they’re fair for everyone, including figuring out a way to compensate the people whose IP you’ve been stealing.
Until then, deal with the same legal landscape as everyone else. Boo hoo
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀🌌
I also think it’s really rich that at the same time they’re whining about copyright they’re trying to go private. I feel like the ‘Open’ part of OpenAI is the only thing that could possibly begin to offset their rampant theft and even then they’re not nearly open enough.
They are not releasing anything of value in open source recently.
Sam altman said they were on the wrong side of history about this when deepseek released.
They are not open anymore I want that to be clear. They decided to stop releasing open source because 💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵.
So yeah I can have huge fines for downloading copyrighted material where I live, and they get to make money out of that same material without even releasing anything open source? Fuck no.
Absolutely agreed - and to make matters worse, their clearly stated goals ultimately amount to replacing all of us with their AI. This deal just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?
But I can’t pirate copyrighted materials to “train” my own real intelligence.
I mean, if they are allowed to go forward then we should be allowed to freely pirate as well.
In the end, we’re just training some non-artifical intelligence.
Yeah, you can train your own neural network on pirated content, all right, but you better not enjoy that content at the same time or have any feelings while watching it, because that’s not covered by “training”.
Don’t worry: the law will be very carefully crafted so that it will be legal only if they do it, not us.
Fine by me. Can it be over today?
I’ll get the champagne for us and tissues for Sam.
Unfortunately, the tissues have a 1000% tarrif. Perhaps sandpaper will do?
Shit, save your $$$ and get some GPUs since the market would crash.
I’ll bring the meth
Training that AI is absolutely fair use.
Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.
Agreed… although I would go a step further and say distributing the LLM model or the results of use (even if done without cost) is not fair use, as the training materials weren’t licensed.
Ultimatelly it’s “Doing Research that advances knowledge for everybody” that should be allowed free use of copyrighted materials, whils activities for direct or indirect commercial gains (included Research whose results are Patented and then licensed for a fee) should not, IMHO.
“We can’t succeed without breaking the law. We can’t succeed without operating unethically.”
I’m so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it’s not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.
Too many people think they’re superior. Which is ironic, because they’re also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn’t need all the unethical things that you’re asking for.
Sounds like you are describing the orange baboon in the white house.
these kinds of asshats are all the same. Only difference is the size of the hat.
That sounds like a you problem.
“Our business is so bad and barely viable that it can only survive if you allow us to be overtly unethical”, great pitch guys.
I mean that’s like arguing “our economy is based on slave plantations! If you abolish the practice, you’ll destroy our nation!”
Good point. I’ve never seen it framed this way before. Poignant.
Thanks, heh, I just came back to look at what I’d written again, as it was 6am when I posted that, and sometimes I say some stupid shit when I’m still sleepy. Nice to know that I wasn’t spouting nonsense.
Come on guys, his company is only worth $157 billion.
Of course he can’t pay for content he needs for his automated bullshit machine. He’s not made of money!
Good if AI fails because it can’t abuse copyright. Fuck AI.
*except the stuff used for science that isn’t trained on copyrighted scraped data, that use is fine
Yeah unfortunately we’ve started calling any LLM “AI”
In ye old notation ML was a subset of AI, and thus all LLM would be considered AI. It’s why manual decision trees that codify get NPC behaviour are also called AI, because it is.
Now people use AI to refer only to generative ML, but that’s wrong and I’m willing to complain every time.
Sam Altman is a grifter, but on this topic he is right.
The reality is, that IP laws in their current form hamper innovation and technological development. Stephan Kinsella has written on this topic for the past 25 years or so and has argued to reform the system.
Here in the Netherlands, we know that it’s true. Philips became a great company because they could produce lightbulbs here, which were patented in the UK. We also had a booming margarine business, because we weren’t respecting British and French patents and that business laid the foundation for what became Unilever.
And now China is using those exact same tactics to build up their industry. And it gives them a huge competitive advantage.
A good reform would be to revert back to the way copyright and patent law were originally developed, with much shorter terms and requiring a significant fee for a one time extension.
The current terms, lobbied by Disney, are way too restrictive.
I totally agree. Patents and copyright have their place, but through greed they have been morphed into monstrous abominations that hold back society. I also think that if you build your business on crawled content, society has a right to the result to a fair price. If you cannot provide that without the company failing, then it deserves to fail because the business model obviously was built on exploitation.
I agree, which is why I advocate for reform, not abolishment.
Perhaps AI companies should pay a 15% surcharge on their services and that money goes directly into the arts.
But Sam is talking about copyright and all your examples are patents
It just so happens that in AI it’s about copyright and with margarine (and most other technologies) it’s about patents.
But the point is the same. Technological development is held back by law in both cases.
If all IP laws were reformed 50 years ago, we would probably have the technology from 2050, today.
It’s all the same shit. No patents and copyrights should exist.
Is it? In Sam’s case, we’re mostly talking about creative products in the form of text, audio, and video. If an artist releases a song and the song is copyrighted, it doesn’t hamper innovation and technological development. The same cannot be said when a company patents a sorting algorithm, the method for swiping to unlock a smartphone, or something similar.
If copyrights are used to add a huge price tag to any AI development, then it did just hamper innovation and technological development.
And sadly, what most are clamoring for will disproportionately affect open source development.
If open source apps can’t be copyrighted then the GPL is worthless and that will harm open source development much more
I’m not sure how that applies in the current context, where it would be used as training data.
Because once you can generate the GPL code from the lossy ai database trained on it the GPL protection is meaningless.
That’s not fair to change the system only when businesses require it. I received a fuckin’ letter from a government entity where I live for having downloaded the trash tier movie “Demolition”.
I agree copyright and patents are bad but it’s so infuriating that only the rich and powerful can choose not to respect it.
So I think openAI has to pay because as of now that shitty copyright and patent system is still there and has hurt many individuals around the world.
We should try to change the laws for copyright but after the big businesses pay their due.
Lmao Sam Altman doesn’t want tbe rules chanhed for you. He wants it changed for him.
You will still be beholden to the laws.
Slave owners might go broke after abolition? 😂
I’m going to have to remember this
So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is “fair use”, or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.
That’s like calling stealing from shops essential for my existence and it would be “over” for me if they stop me. The shit these clowns say is just astounding. It’s like they have no morals and no self awareness and awareness for people around them.
That’s like calling stealing from shops essential for my existence and it would be “over” for me if they stop me.
What’s really fucked up is that for some people this is not far from their reality at all
In America, companies have more rights than the human person.
If companies say that they need to do something to survive, that makes it ok. If a human needs to do something to survive, that’s a crime.
Know the difference. (/s)
I think they are either completely delusional, or they know very well how important AI is for the government and the military. The same cannot be said for regular people and their daily struggles.
It’s like stealing from shops except the shops didn’t lose anything. You’re up a stolen widget, but they have just as many as before.
Copyright should not exist in the first place.
It should exist
A creator should own their creation and be able to defend misuse of it for a period of time. Current copyright laws are bullshit though.
I was thinking at the same thing
deleted by creator
No
The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.
