2y ago

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says

www.theguardian.com ‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says

Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says::Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

You're viewing a single thread.

312 comments

But our current copyright model is so robust and fair! They will only have to wait 95y after the author died, which is a completely normal period.
If you want to control your creations, you are completely free to NOT publish it. Nowhere it's stated that to be valuable or beautiful, it has to be shared on the world podium.
We'll have a very restrictive Copyright for non globally transmitted/published works, and one for where the owner of the copyright DID choose to broadcast those works globally. They have a couple years to cash in, and then after I dunno, 5 years, we can all use the work as we see fit. If you use mass media to broadcast creative works but then become mad when the public transforms or remixes your work, you are part of the problem.
Current copyright is just a tool for folks with power to control that power. It's what a boomer would make driving their tractor / SUV while chanting to themselves: I have earned this.
- Copyright can be a double edged sword, but...
  If you want to control your creations, you are completely free to NOT publish it.
  ... You've identified the chilling effect it's designed to prevent: namely, telling people that they don't matter in the scope of creation.
  There's a great video about how plaigirism dehumanizes, and if you've got a couple minutes I'd recommend it.
  
  I think it's pretty amazing when people just run with the dogma that empowers billionaires.
  Every creator hopes they'll be the next taylor swift and that they'll retain control of their art for those life + 70 years and make enough to create their own little dynasty.
  The reality is that long duration copyright is almost exclusively a tool of the already wealthy, not a tool for the not-yet-wealthy. As technology improves it will be easier and easier for wealth to control the system and deny the little guy's copyright on grounds that you used something from their vast portfolio of copyright/patent/trademark/ipmonopolyrulelegalbullshit. Already civil legal disputes are largely a function of who has the most money.
  I don't have the solution that helps artists earn a living, but it doesn't seem like copyright is doing them many favors as-is unless they are retired rockstars who have already earned in excess of the typical middle class lifetime earnings by the time they hit 35, or way earlier.
  
  I don’t have the solution that helps artists earn a living, but it doesn’t seem like copyright is doing them many favors as-is unless they are retired rockstars who have already earned in excess of the typical middle class lifetime earnings by the time they hit 35, or way earlier.
  Just because copyright helps them less doesn't mean it doesn't help them at all. And at the end of the day, I'd prefer to support the retired rockstars over the stealing billionaires.
  
  I am against the dogma that empowers billionaires. Sam Altman is one such billionaire who abuses data that we should not ignore.
  I don't know why you are treating copyright as a binary that doesn't have any nuance. Current Copyright Law Imperfect, and if your concern is genuine we can talk about it at a future time.
  If you don't have the solution, perhaps you should not attack one of the remaining defenses against rampant abuses of peoples' livelihood.
  
  Current Copyright Law Imperfect,
  Yeah and Joseph Stalin was a bit naughty. As long as we are seeing how understated we can be.
  If you don’t have the solution, perhaps you should not attack one of the remaining defenses against rampant abuses of peoples’ livelihood.
  The creator of Superman wasnt paid royalties and was laid off. Many years later he worked a restaurant delivery guy and ended up dropping off food at DC comics. The artist that built that company doing a sandwich run.
  
  deleted
  
  If you got an accusation go ahead and make it. I will be hearing downloading a fucking car
  
  deleted
  
  I am on topic. Our copyright system is flamming garbage and this is a money grab. Everyone is sitting here getting all worked up about who the criminal is and I am asking who the victim is.
  Tell me the name of the artist whose career was ruined by AI copying their original art work. I am not impressed by J.K. "billionaire terf" Rowling POTENTIALLY not making another half million. If you can't produce a victim then there is no crime.
  
  deleted
  
  Wouldn't know. I don't click random links. If you have an argument make it.
  
  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  a great video
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
  
  Them: "Oh yeah I have 10 minutes until my dentist appointment, I'll check that out."
  
  First:
  I truly believe that they don't matter as an individual when looking at their creation as a whole. It matters among their loved ones, and for that person itself. Why do you need more... importance? From who? Why do you need to matter in scope of creation? Is it a creation for you? Then why publish it? Is it a creation for others? Then why does your identity matter? It just seems like egotism with extra steps. Using copyright to combat this seems like a red herring argument made by people who have portfolio's against people who don't..
  You are not only your own person, you carry human culture remnants distilled out of 12000 years of humanity! You plagiarised almost the whole of humanity while creating your 'unique' addition to culture. But, because your remixed work is newer and not directly traceable to its direct origins, we're gonna pretend that you wrote it as a hermit living without humanity on a rock and establish the rules from there on out. If it was fair for all the players in this game, it would already be impossible to not plagiarise.
  
  Funny thing is, human artists work quite similar to AI, in that they take the whole of human art creation, build on ot and create something new (sometimes quite derivative). No art comes out of a vacuum, it builds on previous works. I would not really say AI plagiarizes anything, unless it reproduced pretty much the exact work of someone
- IMHO being able to "control your creations" isn't what copyright was created for; it's just an idea people came up with by analogy with physical property without really thinking through what purpose is supposed to serve. I believe creators of intellectual "property" have no moral right to control what happens with their creations, and they only have a limited legal right to do so as a side-effect of their legal right to profit from their creations.

312 comments