3 ms·

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 an

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.

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.