@molly0xfff I'm expecting columns in the Oligarch Press about how "now is the time to re-evaluate Copyright laws" (but only in the favour of rich people who recently invested a lot of money into AI hype)
@molly0xfff It sounds a bit ridiculous, but is exactly how it works. It is necessary to exploit and steal to be a billionaire, maybe even a multimillionaire? It’s interesting the system, and these arguments are really about the ability to be filthy rich, and not really about the value of “AI”.
No billionaire in the history of anything has done anything worth a billion dollars.
Being a billionaire means you are hoarding wealth that would work better reintroduced in society. Hoarding wealth is literally anti-capitalism. (If one subscribes to the doctrine of capitalism).
That said, being a billionaire means above all you are not paying your employees enough. If you make billions, you could double your employees payment or give them a 4 day work week.
@jernej__s ha, I'd missed that! arguably a better analogy. another, from Bluesky: "My new release streaming service requires me to record movies in movie theaters to stream, it can't function without that."
No, no, no! You just don't get it. What we do is take your cars, break them into all their parts, and then use those parts to build new, different cars! The cars at the end are new, so we can't have stolen them.
@molly0xfff That's because ChatGPT is nothing but a sophisticated search engine. It's a search engine that doesn't point you at sources, it Hoovers up the information itself, blends it with other information, and regurgitates the result. Very clever appliance but there's nothing intelligent about it.
@molly0xfff@mmasnick had really good articles about copyright and how the current set of lawsuits against AI companies miss the point of how copyright actually works.
I'm normally very anti-copyright and would prefer that it not exist, but as long as copyright does exist, OpenAI and others training AI should have to follow it just like everyone else, rather than creating a laundering tool for copyright violations.
Yes, but I'm not under the illusion that it's legal, and thus that there's no way to build a legal business or livelihood around it.
The scenario I don't want is AI getting a free pass to legally ignore copyright (where "legal" lets them build a business around it) while many other things don't (and thus things like reverse engineering, unofficial remakes, game modding, music/video remixing, fanart, fanfiction, and so many other things exist in a quasi-legal state where it's difficult or impossible to make any money from them or sometimes even to keep them online in the face of legal threats).
@molly0xfff I mean, to be fair that's also kind of how the banking system works to some degree...there are different rules for the very wealthy and the poor when it comes to debt and banks.
Copyright laws have been a (small) hurdle for me to steal other people's intellectual property for my own profit, for ages. Why are we still allowing this to happen?!
@dilettante@molly0xfff Copyright is currently installed in 192 different national legal systems and reinforced by international treaties that underpin our entire international trade framework. Even modifying it, let alone abolishing it, is a monumentally difficult task.
@dilettante@molly0xfff@cstross I'd gently point out that abolishing Copyright is not the goal of OpenAI, who, despite its name, no longer releases their models to the public.
@dilettante@cstross not terribly provocative, it's a question the free culture movement has been asking for decades, as have others for longer. but you'll excuse my skepticism around the authenticity of the arguments and motivations of many of the people just now beginning to have these conversations, who stand to profit enormously from what is — at the moment — IP theft
Also the entirely spurious doctrine of corporate personhood—which means in practice corporations get far more out of copyright (as currently constituted) than actual creative individuals. Not to mention other areas where corporations hide behind personhood as a shield from liability, but have none of the vulnerabilities of real people.
Corporate personhood needs to go first. Then we can talk about copyright.
@cstross@molly0xfff@dilettante
Removing all the due process, speach, no self-incrimination, double jeopardy, etc, rights is a lot to give up to deal with copyright and campaign contributions.
@Sdowney@molly0xfff@dilettante My preferred option for a corporation that pulls a stiff jail sentence: the C-suite and board go to jail (or a suspended sentence, or community service), meanwhile the shareholders get no dividends and all share buy-backs and offerings are forbidden for the duration of the sentence, (without remission). So no bonuses for the directors b/c no dividend targets can be met.
@molly0xfff "“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression – including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents – it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,”
Gee, it's almost like the modern copyright system is broken and a hindrance to progress.
they're not doing it for profit or other personal benefit, rather to build a better world for anyone (hence the need to be allowed what is forbidden to others, like using copyright material)
if you don't agree on the better word part, you are a luddite
Add comment