4 ms·

Copyright law isn't going to matter here. There are already models trained solely on owned or licensed content and there is more than enough funding to produce

by djur 3y ago

Copyright law isn't going to matter here. There are already models trained solely on owned or licensed content and there is more than enough funding to produce more. The big businesses dumping billions of dollars into AI have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips. I don't know that I personally know how we get to the ideal outcome here, but I see a lot of ways in which a copyright crackdown will have unexpected ramifications (accidentally banning search indexes, etc.) and consolidate power in the emerging market even further into the hands of extremely well-funded incumbents.

cush 3y ago
> The big businesses … have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips Agree. I’m not suggesting creative authors are attributed and receive royalties based on work generated in their style. I’m suggesting they get compensated for work generated from their training data - based on model weights. People need to get paid. Again, this is Uber/AirBnB all over again except it applies to literally every industry. Coincidentally, Business Insider wrote about this topic just a few hours ago. https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-jaron-lanier-ai-advancing-without-human-dignity-undermines-everything-2023-10?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-jaron-lanier-ai-ad...
- djur 3y ago
  I don't think the question of rights conferred through training data is going to be resolved through copyright law. I think the availability of models trained exclusively on licensed data is going to bypass that controversy. People will get paid to contribute data but probably not a lot.
  - cush 3y ago
    Sure, and that licensed work was created by people. Those people should get paid upon the creation of new derivative work. That’s exactly what copyright law is.
    - djur 3y ago
      Copyright law does not currently mandate any particular payment schedule for licensing work. Are you suggesting that it should?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - cush 3y ago
        Okay… I feel you understand what I’m getting at but are super keen on nitpicking. I know copyright doesn’t mandate payment schedules. It’s a legal tool that prevents people from distributing derivative work without permission. Currently (most) AI models don’t attribute original creators (let alone pay them royalties), which means it’s impossible to pay content creators even if we wanted to. It’s a widely known issue that’s a really hot topic right now. https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-pr...
        djur 3y ago
        I'm not nitpicking, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "copyright law [taking] a massive leap forward in the next year".
cush 3y ago
> there are already models trained Any existing models will be irrelevant in 6 months. Regulations enacted today would provide a legal foundation for tomorrow’s models to abide to.
- djur 3y ago
  Do you have a sense of how much people tend to get paid for commercial art, stock photography, etc.? That's essentially the ceiling on what contributors to training datasets can expect going forward. Regulation isn't likely to be able to significantly influence that, at least not in the US.
  - cush 3y ago
    I do. The royalty system for music, TV, and movies are all actually quite mature - artists receive a few pennies per play. It adds up quick and can easily make a living on royalties. And why would that be the ceiling? AI only expands their existing markets and revenue streams
    - djur 3y ago
      Royalties are almost 100% a private industry matter in the US. There is compulsory licensing with legally mandated royalties for certain types of musical performance, but that is used quite rarely. The vast majority of US music licensing goes through performance rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI. I also wouldn't characterize musicians as being happy with the current state of royalties. Ask a moderately successful musician how much they make on Spotify plays sometime.
      - cush 3y ago
        Right, as I said it’s a mature industry. I feel like you just added to my point. Also I said in my comment it’s pennies per play. Ask a moderately successful writer how much they make on chatGPT. Oh wait it’s zero.

by djur 3y ago

cush 3y ago

> The big businesses … have zero interest in producing counterfeit Calvin and Hobbes strips Agree. I’m not suggesting creative authors are attributed and receive royalties based on work generated in their style. I’m suggesting they get compensated for work generated from their training data - based on model weights. People need to get paid. Again, this is Uber/AirBnB all over again except it applies to literally every industry. Coincidentally, Business Insider wrote about this topic just a few hours ago. https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-jaron-lanier-ai-advancing-without-human-dignity-undermines-everything-2023-10?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-jaron-lanier-ai-ad...

djur 3y ago
I don't think the question of rights conferred through training data is going to be resolved through copyright law. I think the availability of models trained exclusively on licensed data is going to bypass that controversy. People will get paid to contribute data but probably not a lot.
- cush 3y ago
  Sure, and that licensed work was created by people. Those people should get paid upon the creation of new derivative work. That’s exactly what copyright law is.
  - djur 3y ago
    Copyright law does not currently mandate any particular payment schedule for licensing work. Are you suggesting that it should?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - cush 3y ago
      Okay… I feel you understand what I’m getting at but are super keen on nitpicking. I know copyright doesn’t mandate payment schedules. It’s a legal tool that prevents people from distributing derivative work without permission. Currently (most) AI models don’t attribute original creators (let alone pay them royalties), which means it’s impossible to pay content creators even if we wanted to. It’s a widely known issue that’s a really hot topic right now. https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-pr...
      - djur 3y ago
        I'm not nitpicking, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "copyright law [taking] a massive leap forward in the next year".

cush 3y ago

> there are already models trained Any existing models will be irrelevant in 6 months. Regulations enacted today would provide a legal foundation for tomorrow’s models to abide to.

djur 3y ago
Do you have a sense of how much people tend to get paid for commercial art, stock photography, etc.? That's essentially the ceiling on what contributors to training datasets can expect going forward. Regulation isn't likely to be able to significantly influence that, at least not in the US.
- cush 3y ago
  I do. The royalty system for music, TV, and movies are all actually quite mature - artists receive a few pennies per play. It adds up quick and can easily make a living on royalties. And why would that be the ceiling? AI only expands their existing markets and revenue streams
  - djur 3y ago
    Royalties are almost 100% a private industry matter in the US. There is compulsory licensing with legally mandated royalties for certain types of musical performance, but that is used quite rarely. The vast majority of US music licensing goes through performance rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI. I also wouldn't characterize musicians as being happy with the current state of royalties. Ask a moderately successful musician how much they make on Spotify plays sometime.
    - cush 3y ago
      Right, as I said it’s a mature industry. I feel like you just added to my point. Also I said in my comment it’s pennies per play. Ask a moderately successful writer how much they make on chatGPT. Oh wait it’s zero.