OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

  • @BURN
    link
    English
    -51 year ago

    I’m a huge proponent of expanding individual copyright to extreme amounts (an individual is entitled to own the rights and usage rights to anything they create and can revoke those rights from anyone), but not in favor of the same thing for corporations.

    I hold the exact opposite view as you. As long as it’s a truly creative work (a writing, music, artwork, etc) then you own that specific implementation of the idea. Someone can make something else based on it, but you still own the original content.

    LLMs and companies using them need to pay for the content in some way. This is already done through licensing in other parallels, and will likely come to AI quickly.

    • @TropicalDingdong
      link
      English
      61 year ago

      To be clear, I’m still working through my thinking in this but it’s been something cooking for quite a while. I may not have all the words to express my meaning. For example, I think there are two routes to take in making my argument, one moral, the other technical. I’m not building on the morality of copyright, but focusing on the technical aspects of the limits of ideas.

      I suppose I would ask you then about your views in authoritarianism. Because it seems to be that with out an extremely authoritarian state, it would be basically impossible to enforce your view of copyright. Are you okay with that kind of pervasiveness?

      Also, from a technical perspective, how do you propose this view of copyright be applied? This is kind of towards the broader point I’m thinking I believe in. It’s not just that copyright laws are epifaci ridiculous, they are also technically almost unenforceable in their modern extremist interpretation with out an extremely pervasive form of surveillance.

      • @BURN
        link
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Easy. The same way we already do it. We enforce music licensing, video licensing and other ip licensing. It’s been done. All this would do is extend those rights to the individual and remove them from corporations. Work product can be owned by companies, but not indefinitely. Individuals should always be in control of their creations.

        Restrictions would more or less be strictly commercial, to where hobbyists wouldn’t be impacted, but as soon as it’s used to make money the original creators are owed as part of it.

        It wouldn’t be any harder than it is now, as long as copyright is proved. (Hey look, this is the first time I’ve found an actual use of NFTs). In general anything being done for momentary gain is already monitored and surveilled, so this wouldn’t be a change there either.

        Edit: Also most of us already live in authoritarian states. This won’t really change anything. Big corps already enforce their copyright when it makes monetary sense and are actively trolling for unauthorized uses.

        • @TropicalDingdong
          link
          English
          81 year ago

          It wouldn’t be any harder than it is now, as long as copyright is proved. (Hey look, this is the first time I’ve found an actual use of NFTs). In general anything being done for momentary gain is already monitored and surveilled, so this wouldn’t be a change there either.

          Personally, I think you are describing a dystopian, authoritarian landscape which will be devoid of any real creativity or interesting ideas. I’m a believer that all ideas are free to be stolen, copied, improved upon; that imitation of ideas is a fundamental human right, and fundamental to what it means to be human. Likewise, I think our social and media landscape would be much poorer without this right. I don’t think any one has the inherent right to profit off of an idea.

          • @BURN
            link
            English
            -21 year ago

            I feel the exact opposite. There’s no reason for me to create anything if someone else can come along and steal it. Eliminating copyright will bring your dystopian landscape where nobody shares any sort of art or creative work because someone else will steal it.

            What motivation is there for creatives if you’re just telling them their work has no implicit value and anyone else can come along and reappropriate it for whatever they’d like?

            • @TropicalDingdong
              link
              English
              51 year ago

              I feel the exact opposite. There’s no reason for me to create anything if someone else can come along and steal it. Eliminating copyright will bring your dystopian landscape where nobody shares any sort of art or creative work because someone else will steal it.

              This is great because I think you are totally correct in your sentiment that we believe oppositely. I see art created only for the purpose of profit as drivel; true art is an expression of the self. If the only reason you make art is for profit, you aren’t an artist, you are an employee.

              • @BURN
                link
                English
                01 year ago

                That’s a great theory and all, but it’s not even money. I make no money from my photos, but I also refrain from posting any of them because I’d rather they not be used for AI training. Same with any music I create and I’m getting there with my code.

                The nobility of art has always been in question, and it’s consistently been proven that artists who aren’t compensated for their work also tend to create less.

                This is also not explicitly about profit. If I write a song and then it’s used at a hate rally, I currently have no recourse. They’re not making money from that application (directly), but they are using my creation to promote something I don’t agree with.

                I’m curious to know if you’re an artist yourself, as it’s very contrary to the opinions from other creatives I know.

                • @TropicalDingdong
                  link
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  know if you’re an artist yourself, as it’s very contrary to the opinions from other creatives

                  I am and I do creative work professionally as well. I don’t take credit for my art. I don’t put my name on it. I create it, and release it, and once it exists, I depart from it.

                  • @BURN
                    link
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    Fair. That’s not the approach I take, but it’s an understandable one.

                    I like credit for my work. I frequently revisit it too, so it just seems like we have different interpretations of why we create art.

            • @kmkz_ninja
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              I assume you’re against the communal and collective culture that modders for games enjoy?

              I assume you also believe no technological innovations are produced in America anymore since China would simply steal it.

              • @BURN
                link
                English
                01 year ago

                Nowhere did I say derivative works are not ok. If a game maker explicitly forbids using modded versions of their game, I think that should be up to them. Games that have vibrant modding communities are almost always at least partially supported by the developer anyways.

                My points are individual copyright anyways, not corporate. With increasing individual protections I also propose decreasing corporate copyright protection.

                I believe that China makes 90% of the same product for 80% of the price after ripping off their American counterparts. But that’s also entirely off topic and really has nothing to do with this. Art/Creative Works are entirely different than physical goods.

                • @THE_STORM_BLADE
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  How is what AI produces not derivative? Like humans, AI takes in a bunch of inputs (think about all the art you’ve seen, read, and watched, and how it affects the art you create), and outputs something that’s derivative from the input.

                  • @BURN
                    link
                    English
                    01 year ago

                    Because AI has nothing new to add to the work. It’s only able to use work that it’s even before to add, and can’t learn from anything being created.

                    There’s no new generation. AI does not work like a human and should not be afforded the same rights as a person. AI does not transform works the way a human would.

    • @SkyezOpen
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      I hold whatever view makes George Lucas stop digitally remastering the original trilogy.