5 ms·

If you're not going to socialize AI gains, and leave in place the social systems that value people by their output, waiving copyright or other IP is astoundingl

If you're not going to socialize AI gains, and leave in place the social systems that value people by their output, waiving copyright or other IP is astoundingly anti-humane. What should be instead is that fair use doesn't apply to AI training. That is, anything other than explicitly negotiated opt-in should be illegal.

surgical_fire 3y ago
Eh, I disagree. Copyright laws are mostly bullshit anyway, and only tend to favor capital holders, who tend to buy up all the copyright they need. I would gladly see copyright rendered useless. The peasantry hardly benefits from it anyway.
- wwweston 3y ago
  "AIs can ignore copyright" is the absolute ultimate in blank check for capital holders. Waiving copyright to solve the problem of systems favoring them is like deciding to jump because you're afraid of heights. Copyright law has done a huge amount to reward creators -- I know even local-tier artists and musicians without the support of large capital who make a good chunk of their living through sales supported by it. The full benefits of copyright law don't always accrue to every creator, but the reason for that capital has stronger economic power when it comes to capturing distribution (often aided by consumers who prefer something like Spotify which is priced inexcusably low) which it can leverage into stronger negotiating power against creators, not because "copyright law is mostly bullshit." When the system works (and it does for some people) creators are rewarded and can invest more time in doing things better. When it doesn't (ugh, streaming revenues), the situation could be improved, but as is generally the case not by just deciding to not bother with the whole thing.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    How do I benefit from 90 years long copyright terms?
    - wwweston 3y ago
      The same way you benefit from copyright being valuable to creators at all combined with the reason why options with longer exercise horizons are more valuable. Honestly I'm not sure 90 years or whatever is the optimal time and I'm certainly willing to sign on to discussion with thoughtful people or even political movements about whether term length reform should be included in those "when it doesn't [work]" considerations regarding copyright I mentioned earlier. Lengths beyond max(author_lifetime,half_average_lifespan) probably have diminishing social and individual returns. But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter.
      - zirgs 3y ago
        There's a huge difference between, say, 25 years after publication and 70-90 years after the author's death. I'd argue that shorter copyright terms would be benefical to society. It would force Disney to finally create something new instead of endless reboots, sequels and remakes. How many Batman reboots do we have now? How many do we need?
      - surgical_fire 3y ago
        I am not convinced. Creators have multiple avenues to profit from their creations beyond copyright. Either way, this is orthogonal to the original point. Copyright being undermined by generative AI may be a positive outcome for society as a whole, as it is a powerful creative tool. Some things that might take a large team of people to create will perhaps be more accessible to solo creators or smaller teams. > But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter. Then don't have that conversation. No one is forcing you.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  I don't think you understand what's being proposed here. I expect that, as today, the AI output will absolutely be copyrighted and strictly protected against any attempt to copy it by others. However these protections won't apply to the inputs a company will use to train the AI. ...and oh yeah, if the Sam Altmans of the world get their way you'll need a license from the government to run your own AI model. We might go from a regime that "tends to favor capital holders" to one where the IP rights of the capital holders are largely the same as today, while yours are effectively non-existent.
  - wnkrshm 3y ago
    Large IP holders could eventually just copyright every image that can exist if AI output is copyrightable - large IP holders can divide claims to the entirety of human illustrative output within a few years, without any significant white spots left. They sample the space, the company automatically publishes to their own platform and done. Which claim is then violated is up to models again that classify and where it's a toss-up, companies will find a negotiated licensing price. A license for the models has to be paid by the competitor anyways, because they'll need to use it to classify their own creation against it to tell whether they're infringing. That goes well with GPT6 running the legal show automatically.
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    > I don't think you understand what's being proposed here. I expect that, as today, the AI output will absolutely be copyrighted and strictly protected against any attempt to copy it by others. However these protections won't apply to the inputs a company will use to train the AI. And the output of that will not be copyrightable to train AI, whose output will be copyrightable, but not to train more AI, ad infinitum. Copyright is the problem here, not AI. > ...and oh yeah, if the Sam Altmans of the world get their way you'll need a license from the government to run your own AI model. That may be impossible to enforce, as models leak into the world, and you can run then offline in a sufficiently powerful machine. Let's hope that becomes the case.

surgical_fire 3y ago

Eh, I disagree. Copyright laws are mostly bullshit anyway, and only tend to favor capital holders, who tend to buy up all the copyright they need. I would gladly see copyright rendered useless. The peasantry hardly benefits from it anyway.

wwweston 3y ago
"AIs can ignore copyright" is the absolute ultimate in blank check for capital holders. Waiving copyright to solve the problem of systems favoring them is like deciding to jump because you're afraid of heights. Copyright law has done a huge amount to reward creators -- I know even local-tier artists and musicians without the support of large capital who make a good chunk of their living through sales supported by it. The full benefits of copyright law don't always accrue to every creator, but the reason for that capital has stronger economic power when it comes to capturing distribution (often aided by consumers who prefer something like Spotify which is priced inexcusably low) which it can leverage into stronger negotiating power against creators, not because "copyright law is mostly bullshit." When the system works (and it does for some people) creators are rewarded and can invest more time in doing things better. When it doesn't (ugh, streaming revenues), the situation could be improved, but as is generally the case not by just deciding to not bother with the whole thing.
- zirgs 3y ago
  How do I benefit from 90 years long copyright terms?
  - wwweston 3y ago
    The same way you benefit from copyright being valuable to creators at all combined with the reason why options with longer exercise horizons are more valuable. Honestly I'm not sure 90 years or whatever is the optimal time and I'm certainly willing to sign on to discussion with thoughtful people or even political movements about whether term length reform should be included in those "when it doesn't [work]" considerations regarding copyright I mentioned earlier. Lengths beyond max(author_lifetime,half_average_lifespan) probably have diminishing social and individual returns. But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      There's a huge difference between, say, 25 years after publication and 70-90 years after the author's death. I'd argue that shorter copyright terms would be benefical to society. It would force Disney to finally create something new instead of endless reboots, sequels and remakes. How many Batman reboots do we have now? How many do we need?
    - surgical_fire 3y ago
      I am not convinced. Creators have multiple avenues to profit from their creations beyond copyright. Either way, this is orthogonal to the original point. Copyright being undermined by generative AI may be a positive outcome for society as a whole, as it is a powerful creative tool. Some things that might take a large team of people to create will perhaps be more accessible to solo creators or smaller teams. > But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter. Then don't have that conversation. No one is forcing you.
AlexandrB 3y ago
I don't think you understand what's being proposed here. I expect that, as today, the AI output will absolutely be copyrighted and strictly protected against any attempt to copy it by others. However these protections won't apply to the inputs a company will use to train the AI. ...and oh yeah, if the Sam Altmans of the world get their way you'll need a license from the government to run your own AI model. We might go from a regime that "tends to favor capital holders" to one where the IP rights of the capital holders are largely the same as today, while yours are effectively non-existent.
- wnkrshm 3y ago
  Large IP holders could eventually just copyright every image that can exist if AI output is copyrightable - large IP holders can divide claims to the entirety of human illustrative output within a few years, without any significant white spots left. They sample the space, the company automatically publishes to their own platform and done. Which claim is then violated is up to models again that classify and where it's a toss-up, companies will find a negotiated licensing price. A license for the models has to be paid by the competitor anyways, because they'll need to use it to classify their own creation against it to tell whether they're infringing. That goes well with GPT6 running the legal show automatically.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  > I don't think you understand what's being proposed here. I expect that, as today, the AI output will absolutely be copyrighted and strictly protected against any attempt to copy it by others. However these protections won't apply to the inputs a company will use to train the AI. And the output of that will not be copyrightable to train AI, whose output will be copyrightable, but not to train more AI, ad infinitum. Copyright is the problem here, not AI. > ...and oh yeah, if the Sam Altmans of the world get their way you'll need a license from the government to run your own AI model. That may be impossible to enforce, as models leak into the world, and you can run then offline in a sufficiently powerful machine. Let's hope that becomes the case.