3 ms·

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books yes, thats why I pay a fee to buy/borrow one (or someone pays the fee in the case of

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books yes, thats why I pay a fee to buy/borrow one (or someone pays the fee in the case of a library.) > listen to music again money is exchanged. > Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of "copyrighted" insights that they eventually remix into their own creations without necessarily reimbursing the original source(s) of their creativity. yes, and so long as they are not derived works, its not a problem. Copyright is there to allow you and me to develop things and make money from it. It is there to stop people stealing our work, which may have taken years to develop and sell it for a profit with none of the risk. Large corperations have abused this to make monster profits. Google have spent billions to try and persuade us that copyright is evil, because they didn't want to pay content producers to host their work (ie music and movies on youtube and local news site) The issue is this, I might have made a website that tells users how to make a specific type of metal work. I have a free ebook, and I run courses. I have spent many years to to perfect the art, create the tutoring content, recording videos. its advertising supported, and people are asked to consider buying a course, to support the creator. The AI company comes along and scrapes all the content, allows people to regurgitate it, with more or less accuracy. The creator now gets less traffic, less money and now cant afford to create more content. The AI people now skim all the money, and the consumer gets less useful information. Culture isn't free. Someone is paying for it, and if you stop paying them, then it doesn't get created.

jstummbillig 4y ago
You don't need to pay for or "borrow" anything to learn from copyrighted works. Nobody has had that expectation for years, and that is also not what copyright pertains to. It's not that AI breaks into libraries and isn't paying the fees. You can google an image of any great work of art and look at it for as long as you like, for free and take from it what you can and use all of that to create something else and get paid for that thing. The stuff that AI uses to learn is available to you, as a human. That is not being challenged in the least. As parent said: Everything is derived work. We are remix machines. It is how we learn and how we make money. Now with AI, apparently, we are offended, when something does it better and faster than we can? To me it seems, if we expect AI to pay additional fees, the question is: Why? I am not saying that it's not an important question. Google has built its entire business around information other people have provided. I would argue most people are quite happy with the existence of something like Google search and see it as a net positive in their lives. Does that make the business part okay? Where do we stand on this in regard to an open web? Is it okay for Google to do what they do (and if they do it well to win the space), or should there maybe be a license where people have to pay the owner whenever they are indexing a website? I don't know. Feels complicated. > If you stop paying them, then it doesn't get created. That's an interesting thought. But is it true and, more so, is it a problem? What if humans from here on will only be paid to create stuff that an AI can't?
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  > What if humans from here on will only be paid to create stuff that an AI can't? I look forward to a life of horrific poverty
  - jstummbillig 4y ago
    I don't think there is any defensible reason to have people at large suffer over AI advancement, without having a plan for making their lifes better. If AI takes jobs because it's simply superior at them, and that creates friction and anxiety until we have stuff figured out, that's of course sad and we should do our best to soften the process, but I think it's inevitable. The carriage must die. It seems obvious that restrictions on training data are just a distraction and will not move the needle on any interesting time frame. If however AI does not pay forward, in an arrangement that makes our collective lifes better, I will be the first to work on burning it into to the fucking ground. But, on a lighter note, since that has generally been the direction of human civilization (not linear when zoomed in, but always when zooming out) I remain optimistic.
    - KaiserPro 4y ago
      In the anglo-saxon world, I have not seen significant successful program since the industrial revolution that has helped or softened the impact of a new process on an affected lump of people[1]. The weavers were left to rot when the automatic looms came in. (there were in flanders east england and northern france incredibly rich and influential class) Furniture makers were left to rot when steam power tools came in Farm labourer were left to starve when steam threshing/harvesting came in. enclosure was another tragic note in england. The green shirts were lobbying for "a share of the domestic profit" in the 20s-30s, in the 60s they were convinced that we were going to be working 2 hours a day by now, with robot servants cooking and cleaning for us, and no-one would be living in poverty. Even Orwell has written on this. Instead we see productivity in the western[2] world dropping. Meaning for every human hour worked we make less money. because I suspect in part to the rise of servant-as-a-service jobs(food/shopping delivery/cleaning/elderly care etc etc) all of which are long hours and low paid. [1] well, DDR everyone had a job, but lived in permapovety and were likely to be disappeared if you spoke out. [2] specifically the US and UK, who appear to be snorting financial inequality by the metric fuckton
ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
> Culture isn't free. Someone is paying for it, and if you stop paying them, then it doesn't get created. That doesn't seem to be universally true, but an end-game of capitalism. There are countless examples of artistry/sculpture/music that were created long before copyright existed and although they may have been "paid" for it previously, those cultural items can be appreciated without needing to pay someone for it. There are also many contemporary cultural items that were created without monetary recompense that can also be enjoyed without needing to spend money. > Copyright is there to allow you and me to develop things and make money from it. It is there to stop people stealing our work, which may have taken years to develop and sell it for a profit with none of the risk. Your use of the word "stealing" is unnecessarily loaded and specifically means that the creator was deprived of physical ownership which would be incorrect.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  > they may have been "paid" for it previously, those cultural items can be appreciated without needing to pay someone for it. You are arguing against your own point here. As I said culture stops being created when there is no money for people to create it. Should copyright never expire? no. is 25 years enough? you betcha. > There are also many contemporary cultural items that were created without monetary recompense Again you are missing the wider point. For culture to be created you need a mix of people, and those people to feel safe enough, and have enough time and energy to create said culture. They will also need money for materials. As I suspect you are not on a poverty wage, you will have the time, energy and healthcare to be able to create a new thing. This is not a luxury someone who works two jobs just to make rent has. > our use of the word "stealing" is unnecessarily loaded and specifically means that the creator was deprived of physical ownership which would be incorrect. stealing is taking with intent to deprive. I mean specifically what I say. taking someone else's work and selling it as your own to make money, whilst depriving that person of credit or income stream. It is morally wrong. Now there is an argument about corporations abusing copyright (they do) but, throwing it all out only benefits people like google, amazon and facebook.
Levitz 4y ago
>Culture isn't free. Someone is paying for it, and if you stop paying them, then it doesn't get created. This is just deeply wrong. Culture existed before money. It is tragic to me that a person can't see culture as anything but a marketable good.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  > It is tragic to me that a person can't see culture as anything but a marketable good. with respect, thats not what I am saying, I'm saying it has a cost. If people do not have the means to spend that money on making culture, then it is not created. Juvenal was a client of someone, and complained about it Tallis, Allegri, Purcell, Bach, Mozart were all professional composers The great seats of learning (Ashurbanipal's libary, Venice, Alexandria) are all paid for by a ruler wanting to show off how good they were Wilde, byron were all rich people wafting around bored and making art on the way. In the 60s-80s it was possible to live in NYC working at a bar or something, and still have time and money to create art. Where can you do that now? Now you need to be rich, or have time, or get patrons. The internet is a great way to either lower the cost of entry (see music) or get support to create (see Patreon) > This is just deeply wrong. Culture existed before money Culture existed when we had time, food and resources to stop worrying about being cold wet and hungry.

jstummbillig 4y ago

You don't need to pay for or "borrow" anything to learn from copyrighted works. Nobody has had that expectation for years, and that is also not what copyright pertains to. It's not that AI breaks into libraries and isn't paying the fees. You can google an image of any great work of art and look at it for as long as you like, for free and take from it what you can and use all of that to create something else and get paid for that thing. The stuff that AI uses to learn is available to you, as a human. That is not being challenged in the least. As parent said: Everything is derived work. We are remix machines. It is how we learn and how we make money. Now with AI, apparently, we are offended, when something does it better and faster than we can? To me it seems, if we expect AI to pay additional fees, the question is: Why? I am not saying that it's not an important question. Google has built its entire business around information other people have provided. I would argue most people are quite happy with the existence of something like Google search and see it as a net positive in their lives. Does that make the business part okay? Where do we stand on this in regard to an open web? Is it okay for Google to do what they do (and if they do it well to win the space), or should there maybe be a license where people have to pay the owner whenever they are indexing a website? I don't know. Feels complicated. > If you stop paying them, then it doesn't get created. That's an interesting thought. But is it true and, more so, is it a problem? What if humans from here on will only be paid to create stuff that an AI can't?

KaiserPro 4y ago
> What if humans from here on will only be paid to create stuff that an AI can't? I look forward to a life of horrific poverty
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  I don't think there is any defensible reason to have people at large suffer over AI advancement, without having a plan for making their lifes better. If AI takes jobs because it's simply superior at them, and that creates friction and anxiety until we have stuff figured out, that's of course sad and we should do our best to soften the process, but I think it's inevitable. The carriage must die. It seems obvious that restrictions on training data are just a distraction and will not move the needle on any interesting time frame. If however AI does not pay forward, in an arrangement that makes our collective lifes better, I will be the first to work on burning it into to the fucking ground. But, on a lighter note, since that has generally been the direction of human civilization (not linear when zoomed in, but always when zooming out) I remain optimistic.
  - KaiserPro 4y ago
    In the anglo-saxon world, I have not seen significant successful program since the industrial revolution that has helped or softened the impact of a new process on an affected lump of people[1]. The weavers were left to rot when the automatic looms came in. (there were in flanders east england and northern france incredibly rich and influential class) Furniture makers were left to rot when steam power tools came in Farm labourer were left to starve when steam threshing/harvesting came in. enclosure was another tragic note in england. The green shirts were lobbying for "a share of the domestic profit" in the 20s-30s, in the 60s they were convinced that we were going to be working 2 hours a day by now, with robot servants cooking and cleaning for us, and no-one would be living in poverty. Even Orwell has written on this. Instead we see productivity in the western[2] world dropping. Meaning for every human hour worked we make less money. because I suspect in part to the rise of servant-as-a-service jobs(food/shopping delivery/cleaning/elderly care etc etc) all of which are long hours and low paid. [1] well, DDR everyone had a job, but lived in permapovety and were likely to be disappeared if you spoke out. [2] specifically the US and UK, who appear to be snorting financial inequality by the metric fuckton

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

> Culture isn't free. Someone is paying for it, and if you stop paying them, then it doesn't get created. That doesn't seem to be universally true, but an end-game of capitalism. There are countless examples of artistry/sculpture/music that were created long before copyright existed and although they may have been "paid" for it previously, those cultural items can be appreciated without needing to pay someone for it. There are also many contemporary cultural items that were created without monetary recompense that can also be enjoyed without needing to spend money. > Copyright is there to allow you and me to develop things and make money from it. It is there to stop people stealing our work, which may have taken years to develop and sell it for a profit with none of the risk. Your use of the word "stealing" is unnecessarily loaded and specifically means that the creator was deprived of physical ownership which would be incorrect.

KaiserPro 4y ago
> they may have been "paid" for it previously, those cultural items can be appreciated without needing to pay someone for it. You are arguing against your own point here. As I said culture stops being created when there is no money for people to create it. Should copyright never expire? no. is 25 years enough? you betcha. > There are also many contemporary cultural items that were created without monetary recompense Again you are missing the wider point. For culture to be created you need a mix of people, and those people to feel safe enough, and have enough time and energy to create said culture. They will also need money for materials. As I suspect you are not on a poverty wage, you will have the time, energy and healthcare to be able to create a new thing. This is not a luxury someone who works two jobs just to make rent has. > our use of the word "stealing" is unnecessarily loaded and specifically means that the creator was deprived of physical ownership which would be incorrect. stealing is taking with intent to deprive. I mean specifically what I say. taking someone else's work and selling it as your own to make money, whilst depriving that person of credit or income stream. It is morally wrong. Now there is an argument about corporations abusing copyright (they do) but, throwing it all out only benefits people like google, amazon and facebook.

Levitz 4y ago

>Culture isn't free. Someone is paying for it, and if you stop paying them, then it doesn't get created. This is just deeply wrong. Culture existed before money. It is tragic to me that a person can't see culture as anything but a marketable good.

KaiserPro 4y ago
> It is tragic to me that a person can't see culture as anything but a marketable good. with respect, thats not what I am saying, I'm saying it has a cost. If people do not have the means to spend that money on making culture, then it is not created. Juvenal was a client of someone, and complained about it Tallis, Allegri, Purcell, Bach, Mozart were all professional composers The great seats of learning (Ashurbanipal's libary, Venice, Alexandria) are all paid for by a ruler wanting to show off how good they were Wilde, byron were all rich people wafting around bored and making art on the way. In the 60s-80s it was possible to live in NYC working at a bar or something, and still have time and money to create art. Where can you do that now? Now you need to be rich, or have time, or get patrons. The internet is a great way to either lower the cost of entry (see music) or get support to create (see Patreon) > This is just deeply wrong. Culture existed before money Culture existed when we had time, food and resources to stop worrying about being cold wet and hungry.