Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is “theft” misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they’re extracting general patterns and concepts - the “Bob Dylan-ness” or “Hemingway-ness” - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in “vector space”. When generating new content, the AI isn’t recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it’s learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It’s more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others’ work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can’t be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there’s precedent for this kind of use being considered “transformative” and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it’s understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it “theft” is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn’t make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
I hate to say this but “let the market decide” if Ai is something the consumer wants/needs they’ll pay for it otherwise let it die.
You drank the kool-aid.
So, is the Internet caring about copyright now? Decades of Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent, Piratebay, bootleg ebooks, movies, music, etc, but we care now because it’s a big corporation doing it?
Just trying to get it straight.
People don’t like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.
The Internet is not a person
People on Lemmy. I personally didn’t realize everyone here was such big fans of copyright and artificial scarcity.
The reality is that people hate tech bros (deservedly) and then blindly hate on everything they like by association, which sometimes results in dumbassery like everyone now dick-riding the copyright system.
The reality is that people hate the corporations using creative peoples works to try and make their jobs basically obsolete and they grab onto anything to fight against it, even if it’s a bit of a stretch.
I’d hate a world lacking real human creativity.
Me too, but real human creativity comes from having the time and space to rest and think properly. Automation is the only reason we have as much leisure time as we do on a societal scale now, and AI just allows us to automate more menial tasks.
Do you know where AI is actually being used the most right now? Automating away customer service jobs, automatic form filling, translation, and other really boring but necessary tasks that computers used to be really bad at before neural networks.
And some automation I have no problems with. However, if corporations would rather use AI than hire creatives, the creatives will have to look for other work and likely won’t have a space to express their creativity, not at work nor during leisure time (no time, exhaustion, etc.). Something should be done so it doesn’t go there. Preemptively. Not after everything’s gone to shit. I don’t see the people defending AI from the copyright stuff even acknowledging the issue. Holding up the copyright card, currently, is the easiest way to try an avoid this happening.
You tell me, was it people suing companies or companies suing people?
Is a company claiming it should be able to have free access to content or a person?
Just a point of clarification: Copyright is about the right of distribution. So yes, a company can just “download the Internet”, store it, and do whatever TF they want with it as long as they don’t distribute it.
That the key: Distribution. That’s why no one gets sued for downloading. They only ever get sued for uploading. Furthermore, the damages (if found guilty) are based on the number of copies that get distributed. It’s because copyright law hasn’t been updated in decades and 99% of it predates computers (especially all the important case law).
What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works. Which is kinda what’s going on but also not really. Let’s say that someone asks ChatGPT to write a few paragraphs of something in the style of Stephen King… His “style” isn’t even cooyrightable so as long as it didn’t copy his works word-for-word is it even a derivative? No one knows. It’s never been litigated before.
My guess: No. It’s not going to count as a derivative work. Because it’s no different than a human reading all his books and performing the same, perfectly legal function.
It’s more about copying, really.
That’s why no one gets sued for downloading.
People do get sued in some countries. EG Germany. I think they stopped in the US because of the bad publicity.
What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works.
That theory is just crazy. I think it’s already been thrown out of all these suits.
Personally for me its about the double standard. When we perform small scale “theft” to experience things we’d be willing to pay for if we could afford it and the money funded the artists, they throw the book at us. When they build a giant machine that takes all of our work and turns it into an automated record scratcher that they will profit off of and replace our creative jobs with, that’s just good business. I don’t think it’s okay that they get to do things like implement DRM because IP theft is so terrible, but then when they do it systemically and against the specific licensing of the content that has been posted to the internet, that’s protected in the eyes of the law
Kill a person, that’s a tragedy. Kill a hundred thousand people, they make you king.
Steal $10, you go to jail. Steal $10 billion, they make you Senator.
If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.
If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.
No, no it doesn’t.
It might become legal, or tolerated, or the laws might become unenforceable.
But that doesn’t make it good, on the contrary, it makes it even worse.
That’s their point.
No shit
What about companies who scrape public sites for training data but then publish their trained models open source for anyone to use?
That feels a lot more reasonable and fair to me personally.
If they still profit from it, no.
Open models made by nonprofit organisations, listing their sources, not including anything from anyone who requests it not to be included (with robots.txt, for instance), and burdened with a GPL-like viral license that prevents the models and their results from being used for profit… that’d probably be fine.
And also be useless for most practical applications.
We’re talking about LLMs. They’re useless for most practical applications by definition.
And when they’re not entirely useless (basically, autocomplete) they’re orders of magnitude less cost-effective than older almost equivalent alternatives, so they’re effectively useless at that, too.
They’re fancy extremely costly toys without any practical use, that thanks to the short-sighted greed of the scammers selling them will soon become even more useless due to model collapse.
I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.
They throw the book at us
Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.
It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.
There is a kernal of validity to your point, but let’s not pretend like those things are at all the same. The difference between copyright violation for personal use and copyright violation for commercialization is many orders of magnitude.
The ingredient thing is a bit amusing, because that’s basically how one of the major fast food chains got to be so big (I can’t remember which one it was ATM though; just that it wasn’t McDonald’s). They cut out the middle-man and just bought their own farm to start growing the vegetables and later on expanded to raising the animals used for the meat as well.
Wait… they actually STOLE the cheese from the cows?
😆
Bullshit. AI are not human. We shouldn’t treat them as such. AI are not creative. They just regurgitate what they are trained on. We call what it does “learning”, but that doesn’t mean we should elevate what they do to be legally equal to human learning.
It’s this same kind of twisted logic that makes people think Corporations are People.
Ok, ignore this specific company and technology.
In the abstract, if you wanted to make artificial intelligence, how would you do it without using the training data that we humans use to train our own intelligence?
We learn by reading copyrighted material. Do we pay for it? Sometimes. Sometimes a teacher read it a while ago and then just regurgitated basically the same copyrighted information back to us in a slightly changed form.
The things is, they can have scads of free stuff that is not copyrighted. But they are greedy and want copyrighted stuff, too
We all should. Copyright is fucking horseshit.
It costs literally nothing to make a digital copy of something. There is ZERO reason to restrict access to things.
You sound like someone who has not tried to make an artistic creation for profit.
You sound like someone unwilling to think about a better system.
Better system for WHOM? Tech-bros that want to steal my content as their own?
I’m a writer, performing artist, designer, and illustrator. I have thought about copyright quite a bit. I have released some of my stuff into the public domain, as well as the Creative Commons. If you want to use my work, you may - according to the licenses that I provide.
I also think copyright law is way out of whack. It should go back to - at most - life of author. This “life of author plus 95 years” is ridiculous. I lament that so much great work is being lost or forgotten because of the oppressive copyright laws - especially in the area of computer software.
But tech-bros that want my work to train their LLMs - they can fuck right off. There are legal thresholds that constitute “fair use” - Is it used for an academic purpose? Is it used for a non-profit use? Is the portion that is being used a small part or the whole thing? LLM software fail all of these tests.
They can slurp up the entirety of Wikipedia, and they do. But they are not satisfied with the free stuff. But they want my artistic creations, too, without asking. And they want to sell something based on my work, making money off of my work, without asking.
Better system for WHOM? Tech-bros that want to steal my content as their own?
A better system for EVERYONE. One where we all have access to all creative works, rather than spending billions on engineers nad lawyers to create walled gardens and DRM and artificial scarcity. What if literally all the money we spent on all of that instead went to artist royalties?
But tech-bros that want my work to train their LLMs - they can fuck right off. There are legal thresholds that constitute “fair use” - Is it used for an academic purpose? Is it used for a non-profit use? Is the portion that is being used a small part or the whole thing? LLM software fail all of these tests.
No. It doesn’t.
They can literally pass all of those tests.
You are confusing OpenAI keeping their LLM closed source and charging access to it, with LLMs in general. The open source models that Microsoft and Meta publish for instance, pass literally all of the criteria you just stated.
Making a copy is free. Making the original is not. I don’t expect a professional photographer to hand out their work for free because making copies of it costs nothing. You’re not paying for the copy, you’re paying for the money and effort needed to create the original.
Making a copy is free. Making the original is not.
Yes, exactly. Do you see how that is different from the world of physical objects and energy? That is not the case for a physical object. Even once you design something and build a factory to produce it, the first item off the line takes the same amount of resources as the last one.
Capitalism is based on the idea that things are scarce. If I have something, you can’t have it, and if you want it, then I have to give up my thing, so we end up trading. Information does not work that way. We can freely copy a piece of information as much as we want. Which is why monopolies and capitalism are a bad system of rewarding creators. They inherently cause us to impose scarcity where there is no need for it, because in capitalism things that are abundant do not have value. Capitalism fundamentally fails to function when there is abundance of resources, which is why copyright was a dumb system for the digital age. Rather than recognize that we now live in an age of information abundance, we spend billions of dollars trying to impose artificial scarcity.
We learn by reading copyrighted material.
We are human beings. The comparison is false on it’s face because what you all are calling AI isn’t in any conceivable way comparable to the complexity and versatility of a human mind, yet you continue to spit this lie out, over and over again, trying to play it up like it’s Data from Star Trek.
This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.
Moreover, human beings make their own choices, they aren’t actual tools.
They pointed a tool at copyrighted works and told it to copy, do some math, and regurgitate it. What the AI “does” is not relevant, what the people that programmed it told it to do with that copyrighted information is what matters.
There is no intelligence here except theirs. There is no intent here except there’s.
This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.
I do think the complexity of artificial neural networks is overstated. A real neuron is a lot more complex than an artificial one, and real neurons are not simply feed forward like ANNs (which have to be because they are trained using back-propagation), but instead have their own spontaneous activity (which kinda implies that real neural networks don’t learn using stochastic gradient descent with back-propagation). But to say that there’s nothing at all comparable between the way humans learn and the way ANNs learn is wrong IMO.
If you read books such as V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee’s Phantoms in the Brain or Oliver Sacks’ The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat you will see lots of descriptions of patients with anosognosia brought on by brain injury. These are people who, for example, are unable to see but also incapable of recognizing this inability. If you ask them to describe what they see in front of them they will make something up on the spot (in a process called confabulation) and not realize they’ve done it. They’ll tell you what they’ve made up while believing that they’re telling the truth. (Vision is just one example, anosognosia can manifest in many different cognitive domains).
It is V.S Ramachandran’s belief that there are two processes that occur in the Brain, a confabulator (or “yes man” so to speak) and an anomaly detector (or “critic”). The yes-man’s job is to offer up explanations for sensory input that fit within the existing mental model of the world, whereas the critic’s job is to advocate for changing the world-model to fit the sensory input. In patients with anosognosia something has gone wrong in the connection between the critic and the yes man in a particular cognitive domain, and as a result the yes-man is the only one doing any work. Even in a healthy brain you can see the effects of the interplay between these two processes, such as with the placebo effect and in hallucinations brought on by sensory deprivation.
I think ANNs in general and LLMs in particular are similar to the yes-man process, but lack a critic to go along with it.
What implications does that have on copyright law? I don’t know. Real neurons in a petri dish have already been trained to play games like DOOM and control the yoke of a simulated airplane. If they were trained instead to somehow draw pictures what would the legal implications of that be?
There’s a belief that laws and political systems are derived from some sort of deep philosophical insight, but I think most of the time they’re really just whatever works in practice. So, what I’m trying to say is that we can just agree that what OpenAI does is bad and should be illegal without having to come up with a moral imperative that forces us to ban it.
We are human beings. The comparison is false on it’s face because what you all are calling AI isn’t in any conceivable way comparable to the complexity and versatility of a human mind, yet you continue to spit this lie out, over and over again, trying to play it up like it’s Data from Star Trek.
If you fundamentally do not think that artificial intelligences can be created, the onus is on yo uto explain why it’s impossible to replicate the circuitry of our brains. Everything in science we’ve seen this far has shown that we are merely physical beings that can be recreated physically.
Otherwise, I asked you to examine a thought experiment where you are trying to build an artificial intelligence, not necessarily an LLM.
This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.
Or you are over complicating yourself to seem more important and special. Definitely no way that most people would be biased towards that, is there?
Moreover, human beings make their own choices, they aren’t actual tools.
Oh please do go ahead and show us your proof that free will exists! Thank god you finally solved that one! I heard people were really stressing about it for a while!
They pointed a tool at copyrighted works and told it to copy, do some math, and regurgitate it. What the AI “does” is not relevant, what the people that programmed it told it to do with that copyrighted information is what matters.
“I don’t know how this works but it’s math and that scares me so I’ll minimize it!”
If we have an AI that’s equivalent to humanity in capability of learning and creative output/transformation, it would be immoral to just use it as a tool. At least that’s how I see it.
I think that’s a huge risk, but we’ve only ever seen a single, very specific type of intelligence, our own / that of animals that are pretty closely related to us.
Movies like Ex Machina and Her do a good job of pointing out that there is nothing that inherently means that an AI will be anything like us, even if they can appear that way or pass at tasks.
It’s entirely possible that we could develop an AI that was so specifically trained that it would provide the best script editing notes but be incapable of anything else for instance, including self reflection or feeling loss.
And that’s all paid for. Think how much just the average high school graduate has has invested in them, ai companies want all that, but for free
It’s not though.
A huge amount of what you learn, someone else paid for, then they taught that knowledge to the next person, and so on. By the time you learned it, it had effectively been pirated and copied by human brains several times before it got to you.
Literally anything you learned from a Reddit comment or a Stack Overflow post for instance.
If only there was a profession that exchanges knowledge for money. Some one who “teaches.” I wonder who would pay them
Here’s an experiment for you to try at home. Ask an AI model a question, copy a sentence or two of what they give back, and paste it into a search engine. The results may surprise you.
And stop comparing AI to humans but then giving AI models more freedom. If I wrote a paper I’d need to cite my sources. Where the fuck are your sources ChatGPT? Oh right, we’re not allowed to see that but you can take whatever you want from us. Sounds fair.
Did the experiment.
Zero shock factor. It showed an empty google search result. I have screenshots for the deniers. I don’t know what you think will happen, but unless you’re asking it some super vague question, where the answer would be unanimous across the board, it’s not going to spit out some shock factor quote that you can google. What a waste of an ‘experiment’.
Bro this was 6 months ago lol. Models have gotten way better since then. I made this comment when Google was still telling people to put glue on pizza. Which, if you did re-input the answer, would take you to a reddit post. Almost all of them would take you to a reddit post back then.
It’s not a breach of copyright or other IP law not to cite sources on your paper.
Getting your paper rejected for lacking sources is also not infringing in your freedom. Being forced to pay damages and delete your paper from any public space would be infringement of your freedom.
I mean, you’re not necessarily wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still stealing, which was my point. Just because laws haven’t caught up to it yet doesn’t make it any less of a shitty thing to do.
When I analyze a melody I play on a piano, I see that it reflects the music I heard that day or sometimes, even music I heard and liked years ago.
Having parts similar or a part that is (coincidentally) identical to a part from another song is not stealing and does not infringe upon any law.
You guys are missing a fundamental point. The copyright was created to protect an author for specific amount of time so somebody else doesn’t profit from their work essentially stealing their deserved revenue.
LLM AI was created to do exactly that.
The original source material is still there. They just made a copy of it. If you think that’s stealing then online piracy is stealing as well.
Well they make a profit off of it, so yes. I have nothing against piracy, but if you’re reselling it that’s a different story.
But piracy saves you money which is effectively the same as making a profit. Also, it’s not just that they’re selling other people’s work for profit. You’re also paying for the insane amount of computing power it takes to train and run the AI plus salaries of the workers etc.
It’s not stealing, its not even ‘piracy’ which also is not stealing.
Copyright laws need to be scaled back, to not criminalize socially accepted behavior, not expand.
I’m pretty sure that it’s true that citing sources isn’t really relevant to copyright violation, either you are violating or not. Saying where you copied from doesn’t change anything, but if you are using some ideas with your own analysis and words it isn’t a violation either way.
With music this often ends up in civil court. Pretty sure the same can in theory happen for written texts, but the commercial value of most written texts is not worth the cost of litigation.
Can you just give us the TLDE?
AI Chat bots copy/paste much of their “training data” verbatim.
Not to fully argue against your point, but I do want to push back on the citations bit. Given the way an LLM is trained, it’s not really close to equivalent to me citing papers researched for a paper. That would be more akin to asking me to cite every piece of written or verbal media I’ve ever encountered as they all contributed in some small way to way that the words were formulated here.
Now, if specific data were injected into the prompt, or maybe if it was fine-tuned on a small subset of highly specific data, I would agree those should be cited as they are being accessed more verbatim. The whole “magic” of LLMs was that it needed to cross a threshold of data, combined with the attentional mechanism, and then the network was pretty suddenly able to maintain coherent sentences structure. It was only with loads of varied data from many different sources that this really emerged.
This is the catch with OPs entire statement about transformation. Their premise is flawed, because the next most likely token is usually the same word the author of a work chose.
And that’s kinda my point. I understand that transformation is totally fine but these LLM literally copy and paste shit. And that’s still if you are comparing AI to people which I think is completely ridiculous. If anything these things are just more complicated search engines with half the usefulness. If I search online about how to change a tire I can find some reliable sources to do so. If I ask AI how to change a tire it would just spit something out that might not even be accurate and I’d have to search again afterwards just to make sure what it told me was even accurate.
It’s just a word calculator based on information stolen from people without their consent. It has no original thought process so it has no way to transform anything. All it can do is copy and paste in different combinations.
I hear you about the cheese bro.
I thought the larger point was that they’re using plenty of sources that do not lie in the public domain. Like if I download a textbook to read for a class instead of buying it - I could be proscecuted for stealing. And they’ve downloaded and read millions of books without paying for them.
And they've downloaded and read millions of books without paying for them.Do you have a source on that?
Most AI models used Books3 as part of their dataset which is a collection of pirated books. Here are a few articles talking about it:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/20/24224450/anthropic-copyright-lawsuit-pirated-books-ai
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/books3-ai-meta-llama-pirated-books/675063/
Thank you
While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.
Exactly, there are blatant examples of direct plagiarism spat out by these LLMs.
Operating system have been used to commit copyright infringement much more effectively and massively by copying copyrighted material verbatim.
OS vendors are not liable, the people who make and distribute the copies are. The same applies for Word processors, image editors etc.
You are for a massive expansion on the scope of copyright limiting the freedoms of the general public not just AI corps or tech corps.
Those analogies don’t make any sense.
Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?
Yes they do.
Which is why you want an agreement to make them liable for copyright infringement (plagiarism is not a crime itself).
You would have to pay for distributing copyright infringing material whether created by AI or humans or just straight up copied.
I don’t care if AI will be used,commercially or otherwise.
I am worried about further limitations being placed upon the general public (not “creatives”/publishers/AI corps) either by reinterpretation of existing laws, amendment of existing laws or legislation of brand new rights (for copyright holders/creators, not the general public).
I don’t even care who wins, the “creatives” or tech/AI, just that we don’t get further shafted.
Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.
It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.
I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.
I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.
Using your logic, the one making the copy in a word processor is the person typing, and the one making the copy in this LLM is OpenAI
Nope. The output is based on the users input in both cases.
No, the output in a word processor is explicitly created by the user, whereas the output created by a LLM is based on the training data OpenSI scraped and influenced by a user prompt
You need a very specific prompt to make a copy. Even to just be similar enough you have to put the proper input and try a lot of repetitions.
That’s why the right holders are going after the training which included copying by the AI corpos.
In your dream land right holders could just prompt the AI till it spit something close to their work and sue the AI corp for that. Repeat as needed ; infinite money glitch.
Obviously it doesn’t work that way.
OS vendors aren’t selling¹ what users copy into the clipboard.
¹ Well, Microsoft probably is, especially with that recall bullshit, and I don’t trust Google and Apple not to do it either… but if any of them is doing it they should get fined into bankruptcy.
Neither are AI vendors. We have locally hosted AI models and they don’t contain what they output. You can tell by the actual size.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.
The idea of a “teensy” exception so that we can “advance” into a dark age of creative pointlessness and regurgitated slop, where humans doing the fun part has been made “unnecessary” by the unstoppable progress of “thinking” machines, would be hilarious, if it weren’t depressing as fuck.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression
…within a capitalistic framework.
Humans are creative creatures and will express themselves regardless of economic incentives. We don’t have to transmute ideas into capital just because they have “value”.
That’s the reason we got copyright, but I don’t think that’s the only reason we could want copyright.
Two good reasons to want copyright:
- Accurate attribution
- Faithful reproduction
Accurate attribution:
Open source thrives on the notion that: if there’s a new problem to be solved, and it requires a new way of thinking to solve it, someone will start a project whose goal is not just to build new tools to solve the problem but also to attract other people who want to think about the problem together.
If anyone can take the codebase and pretend to be the original author, that will splinter the conversation and degrade the ability of everyone to find each other and collaborate.
In the past, this was pretty much impossible because you could check a search engine or social media to find the truth. But with enshittification and bots at every turn, that looks less and less guaranteed.
Faithful reproduction:
If I write a book and make some controversial claims, yet it still provokes a lot of interest, people might be inclined to publish slightly different versions to advance their own opinions.
Maybe a version where I seem to be making an abhorrent argument, in an effort to mitigate my influence. Maybe a version where I make an argument that the rogue publisher finds more palatable, to use my popularity to boost their own arguments.
This actually happened during the early days of publishing, by the way! It’s part of the reason we got copyright in the first place.
And again, it seems like this would be impossible to get away with now, buuut… I’m not so sure anymore.
—
Personally:
I favor piracy in the sense that I think everyone has a right to witness culture even if they can’t afford the price of admission.
And I favor remixing because the cultural conversation should be an active read-write two-way street, no just passive consumption.
But I also favor some form of licensing, because I think we have a duty to respect the integrity of the work and the voice of the creator.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!” I think anyone who compares OpenAI to pirates (favorably) is unwittingly helping the next set of feudal tech lords build a wall around the entirety of human creativity, and they won’t realize their mistake until the real toll booths open up.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!”
I’ve never done this. But I have taken lessons from people for instruments, listened to bands I like, and then created and played songs that certainly are influences by all of that. I’ve also taken a lot of art classes, and studied other people’s painting styles and then created things from what I’ve learned, and said “look at what I made!” Which is far more akin to what AI is doing that what you are implying here.
So what if its closer? Its still not an accurate description, because thats not what AI does.
Because what they are describing is just straight up theft, while what I describes is so much closer to how one trains and ai. I’m afraid that what comes out of this ai hysteria is that copyright gets more strict and humans copying style even becomes illegal.
Well that all doesn’t matter much. If AI is used to cause harm, it should be regulated. If that frustrates you then go get the laws changed that allow shitty companies to ruin good ideas.
I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.
I’m not even sure you’re responding to my post.
I’m sympathetic to the reflexive impulse to defend OpenAI out of a fear that this whole thing results in even worse copyright law.
I, too, think copyright law is already smothering the cultural conversation and we’re potentially only a couple of legislative acts away from having “property of Disney” emblazoned on our eyeballs.
But don’t fall into their trap of seeing everything through the lens of copyright!
We have other laws!
We can attack OpenAI on antitrust, likeness rights, libel, privacy, and labor laws.
Being critical of OpenAI doesn’t have to mean siding with the big IP bosses. Don’t accept that framing.
Their framing of how AI works is grossly inaccurate. I just corrected that.
I’d agree, but here’s one issue with that: we live in reality, not in a post-capitalist dreamworld.
Creativity takes up a lot of time from the individual, while a lot of us are already working two or even three jobs, all on top of art. A lot of us have to heavily compromise on a lot of things, or even give up our dreams because we don’t have the time for that. Sure, you get the occasional “legendary metal guitarist practiced so much he even went to the toilet with a guitar”, but many are so tired from their main job, they instead just give up.
Developing game while having a full-time job feels like crunching 24/7, while only around 4 is going towards that goal, which includes work done on my smartphone at my job. Others just outright give up. This shouldn’t be the normal for up and coming artists.
Honestly, that’s why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.
One issue is, many open source AI also tries to ape whatever the big ones are doing at the moment, with the most outrageous example is one that generates a timelapse for AI art.
There’s also tools that especially were created with artists in mind, but they’re less popular due to the average person cannot use it as easily as the prompter machines, nor promise the end of “people with fake jobs” (boomers like generative AI for this reason).
That’s why we should look for good solutions to societal problems, and not fall back on bad “solutions” just because that’s what we’re used to. I’m not against the idea of copyright existing. But copyright as it exists today is stifling and counterproductive for most creative endeavors. We do live in reality, but I don’t believe it is the only possible reality. We’re not getting to Star Trek Space Communism™ anytime soon and honestly I like the idea of owning stuff. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t concrete steps we can and should take right now in the present reality to make things better. And for that to happen we need to get our priorities and philosophies straight. Philosophies which for me include a robust public commons, the inability to own ideas outright, and the ability to take and transform art and culture. Otherwise, we’re just falling into the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” mindset but for art and culture.
You’re not wrong.
The kind of art humanity creates is skewed a lot by the need for it to be marketable, and then sold in order to be worth doing.
But copyright is better than nothing, and this exemption would straight up be even worse than nothing.
Sorry buddy, but that capitalistic framework is where we all have to exist for the forseeable future.
Giving corporations more power is not going to help us end that.
I don’t think they’re advocating for more capitalism.
Can’t say you’re wrong, however the forseeable future is less than two centuries, and our failure to navigate our way out of capitalism towards something more mutualistic figures largely into our imminent doom.
Humans are indeed creative by nature, we like making things. What we don’t naturally do is publish, broadcast and preserve our work.
Society is iterative. What we build today, we build mostly out of what those who came before us built. We tell our versions of our forefathers’ stories, we build new and improved versions of our forefather’s machines.
A purely capitalistic society would have infinite copyright and patent durations, this idea is mine, it belongs to me, no one can ever have it, my family and only my family will profit from it forever. Nothing ever improves because improving on an old idea devalues the old idea, and the landed gentry can’t allow that.
A purely communist society immediately enters whatever anyone creates into the public domain. The guy who revolutionizes energy production making everyone’s lives better is paid the same as a janitor. So why go through all the effort? Just sweep the floors.
At least as designed, our idea of copyright is a compromise. If you have an idea, we will grant you a limited time to exclusively profit from your idea. You may allow others to also profit at your discretion; you can grant licenses, but that’s up to you. After the time is up, your idea enters the public domain, and becomes the property and heritage of humanity, just like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Others are free to reproduce and iterate upon your ideas.
I think you have your janitor example backwards. Spending my time revolutionizing energy productions sounds much more enjoyable than sweeping floors. Same with designing an effective floor sweeping robot.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.
I feel like that purpose has already been undermined by various changes to copyright law since its inception, such as DMCA and lengthening copyright term from 14 years to 95. Freedom to remix existing works is an important part of creative expression which current law stifles for any original work that releases in one person’s lifespan. (Even Disney knew this: the animated Pinocchio movie wouldn’t exist if copyright could last more than 56 years then)
Either way, giving bots the ‘right’ to remix things that were just made less than a year ago while depriving humans the right to release anything too similar to a 94 year old work seems ridiculous on both ends.
Honestly, if this somehow results in regulators being like “fuck it, piracy is legal now” it won’t negatively impact me in any way…
Corporations have abused copyright law for decades, they’ve ruined the internet, they’ve ruined media, they’ve ruined video games. I want them to lose more than anything else.
The shitty and likely situation is they’ll be like “fuck it corporate piracy is legal but individuals doing it is still a crime”.
I think that training models on scraped internet data should be legal if and only if those models’ weights are required to be open-source. It’d be like slapping a copyleft license on the internet - you can do what you want with public data, but you have to give what you use it for back to the public.
I don’t view free-use models as open-source. Open-source means I can rebuild it from scratch and I can’t because I don’t know what the training data is, or have access to it.
The issue here is that the cheese gets consumed for the sandwitch. Knowledge does not lost when it gets passed. Cheese does.
This take is correct although I would make one addition. It is true that copyright violation doesn’t happen when copyrighted material is inputted or when models are trained. While the outputs of these models are not necessarily copyright violations, it is possible for them to violate copyright. The same standards for violation that apply to humans should apply to these models.
I entirely reject the claims that there should be one standard for humans and another for these models. Every time this debate pops up, people claim some province based on ‘intelligence’ or ‘conscience’ or ‘understanding’ or ‘awareness’. This is a meaningless argument because we have no clear understanding about what those things are. I’m not claiming anything about the nature of these models. I’m just pointing out that people love to apply an undefined standard to them.
We should apply the same copyright standards to people, models, corporations, and old-school algorithms.
“This process is akin to how humans learn… The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations…”
Now I sail the high seas myself, but I don’t think Paramount Studios would buy anyone’s defence they were only pirating their movies so they can learn the general content so they can produce their own knockoff.
Yes artists learn and inspire each other, but more often than not I’d imagine they consumed that art in an ethical way.
I personally am down for this punch-up between Alphabet and Sony. Microsoft v. Disney.
🍿
Surely it’s coming. We have The music publishing cartel vs Suno already.
