5 ms·

So i'm not sure how I feel, but to play Devil's advocate -- If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I

So i'm not sure how I feel, but to play Devil's advocate -- If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit, perhaps I'm much less likely to progress Science and useful Arts by creating content in the first place. I fear an internet of signup walls and TOC agreements for everything, just to prevent crawlers that feed AI from soaking it all up.

chii 3y ago
> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model but today, without an AI model, anything you create is already going to be learnt and studied (if it is worth studying of course). What's the difference, but speed? > they get 99% of the profit Why is that a priori the assumption? What stops you from getting a profit? > I do 99% of the work you did 0.000001% of the work, since the model contains billions of other works from which they train.
- skydhash 3y ago
  > What stops you from getting a profit? OpenAI and Stable Diffusion not paying for their dataset. I don’t believe GitHub asked for my contribution to Copilot.
  - chii 3y ago
    But you weren't receiving profit from your works originally? So therefore, why does it matter what someone else was doing?
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      If someone jacks my car while I'm asleep, races it, and wins a prize, and returns it before I wake up, they haven't deprived me of anything, profited off my property, and it's still wrong. Profit and deprivation are not and never will be a good tests in determining things like this.
      - chii 3y ago
        > jacks my car no, they downloaded your car.
Ajedi32 3y ago
> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit Could you give a more concrete example of how this could happen? As-is, I don't see how the existence of an AI model trained on J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is going to result in Tolkien's works receiving 99% less profit. Maybe you could argue AI models as a whole will devalue certain types of creative works (e.g. art commissions for designing logos), but they don't need to train on any one particular creative work to accomplish that, so unless you're saying we should just ban AI models entirely I'm not sure how copyright helps with that. > I fear an internet of signup walls and TOC agreements for everything, just to prevent crawlers that feed AI from soaking it all up. This is a fair point, particularly since it appears to be already happening to some extent. Though it seems to be largely social media companies and content aggregators trying to control access to information they don't hold the copyright to in the first place, not individual users trying to restrict access to works that they created. I'm not sure copyright would really help "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" there so much as "promote the wallets of large social media conglomerates".
Zuiii 3y ago
> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit, perhaps I'm much less likely to progress Science and useful Arts by creating content in the first place. Perhaps you wouldn't but I, and apparently most of the scientific community who publish research, would (and do). The entitlement of people here feel towards their way of doing things is astounding. It's a story as old as time: Those who try to resist or limit progress (by placing arbitrary restrictions) will be beaten by those who adapt.
- trgdr 3y ago
  I think you should spend some time thinking about the purpose of progress. Progress in and of itself is not useful, nor is it necessarily desirable. It's very easy to envision a society that is both more advanced than ours and profoundly worse in all meaningful aspects.
  - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    More people around here need to hear this.

chii 3y ago

> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model but today, without an AI model, anything you create is already going to be learnt and studied (if it is worth studying of course). What's the difference, but speed? > they get 99% of the profit Why is that a priori the assumption? What stops you from getting a profit? > I do 99% of the work you did 0.000001% of the work, since the model contains billions of other works from which they train.

skydhash 3y ago
> What stops you from getting a profit? OpenAI and Stable Diffusion not paying for their dataset. I don’t believe GitHub asked for my contribution to Copilot.
- chii 3y ago
  But you weren't receiving profit from your works originally? So therefore, why does it matter what someone else was doing?
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    If someone jacks my car while I'm asleep, races it, and wins a prize, and returns it before I wake up, they haven't deprived me of anything, profited off my property, and it's still wrong. Profit and deprivation are not and never will be a good tests in determining things like this.
    - chii 3y ago
      > jacks my car no, they downloaded your car.

Ajedi32 3y ago

> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit Could you give a more concrete example of how this could happen? As-is, I don't see how the existence of an AI model trained on J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is going to result in Tolkien's works receiving 99% less profit. Maybe you could argue AI models as a whole will devalue certain types of creative works (e.g. art commissions for designing logos), but they don't need to train on any one particular creative work to accomplish that, so unless you're saying we should just ban AI models entirely I'm not sure how copyright helps with that. > I fear an internet of signup walls and TOC agreements for everything, just to prevent crawlers that feed AI from soaking it all up. This is a fair point, particularly since it appears to be already happening to some extent. Though it seems to be largely social media companies and content aggregators trying to control access to information they don't hold the copyright to in the first place, not individual users trying to restrict access to works that they created. I'm not sure copyright would really help "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" there so much as "promote the wallets of large social media conglomerates".

Zuiii 3y ago

> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit, perhaps I'm much less likely to progress Science and useful Arts by creating content in the first place. Perhaps you wouldn't but I, and apparently most of the scientific community who publish research, would (and do). The entitlement of people here feel towards their way of doing things is astounding. It's a story as old as time: Those who try to resist or limit progress (by placing arbitrary restrictions) will be beaten by those who adapt.

trgdr 3y ago
I think you should spend some time thinking about the purpose of progress. Progress in and of itself is not useful, nor is it necessarily desirable. It's very easy to envision a society that is both more advanced than ours and profoundly worse in all meaningful aspects.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  More people around here need to hear this.