Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

    • @DandomRudeEnglish
      11•1 year ago

      OpenAI and such being forced to pay a share seems far from the worst scenario I can imagine. I think it would be much worse if artists, writers, scientists, open source developers and so on were forced to stop making their works freely available because they don’t want their creations to be used by others for commercial purposes. That could really mean that large parts of humanity would be cut off from knowledge.

      I can well imagine copyleft gaining importance in this context. But this form of licencing seems pretty worthless to me if you don’t have the time or resources to sue for your rights - or even to deal with the various forms of licencing you need to know about to do so.

      • @kkluszEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        I think it would be much worse if artists, writers, scientists, open source developers and so on were forced to stop making their works freely available because they don’t want their creations to be used by others for commercial purposes.

        None of them are forced to stop making their works freely available. If they want to voluntarily stop making their works freely available to prevent commercial interests from using them, that’s on them.

        Besides, that’s not so bad to me. The rest of us who want to share with humanity will keep sharing with humanity. The worst case imo is that artists, writers, scientists, and open source developers cannot take full advantage of the latest advancements in tech to make more and better art, writing, science, and software. We cannot let humanity’s creative potential be held hostage by anyone.

        That could really mean that large parts of humanity would be cut off from knowledge.

        On the contrary, AI is making knowledge more accessible than ever before to large parts of humanity. The only comparible other technologies that have done this in recent times are the internet and search engines. Thank goodness the internet enables piracy that allows anyone to download troves of ebooks for free. I look forward to AI doing the same on an even greater scale.

        • Flying SquidEnglish
          7•1 year ago

          Shouldn’t there be a way to freely share your works without having to expect an AI to train on them and then be able to spit them back out elsewhere without attribution?

          • @kkluszEnglish
            1•1 year ago

            No, there shouldn’t because that would imply restricting what I can do with the information I have access to. I am in favor of maintaining the sort of unrestricted general computing that we already have access to.

        • @[email protected]English
          3•1 year ago

          The rest of us who want to share with humanity will keep sharing with humanity. The worst case imo is that artists, writers, scientists, and open source developers cannot take full advantage of the latest advancements in tech to make more and better art, writing, science, and software. We cannot let humanity’s creative potential be held hostage by anyone.

          You’re not talking about sharing it with humanity, you’re talking about feeding it into an AI. How is this holding back the creative potential of humanity? Again, you’re talking about feeding and training a computer with this material.

          • @kkluszEnglish
            1•1 year ago

            Sharing it with humanity implies feeding it into AI, because if the general public has access to it then some human somewhere will feed it into an AI. Those who want to avoid having their works fed into AI will have to keep it hidden from humanity at large.

            Humans are already using AI for all sorts of creative purposes. To crimp AI by artificially limiting the amount of data it can train on would be harming the ability of humans to use AI to output their fullest creative potential.

    • @[email protected]English
      0•1 year ago

      Even the most reasonable law in the world can’t be enforced on someone who broke it 6 months before it was legislated.

      Sure it can. Just because it is a new law doesn’t mean they get to continue benefiting from IP ‘theft’ forever into the future.

      Imagine the FOMO and user frustration when ToS & legislation catch up and now ChatGPT has no access to the latest books, music, news, research, everything. Just stuff from before authors knew to include the “hands off” clause

      How is this an issue for the IP holders? Just because you build something cool or useful doesn’t mean you get a pass to do what you want.

      basically like the knowledge cutoff, but forever. It’s untenable,

      Untenable for ChatGPT maybe, but it’s not as if it’s the end of ‘knowledge’ or the end of AI. It’s just a single company product.