3 ms·
This argument kind of elides over how you will make the millions, when the author has not. The hypothetical of lost revenue needs to be validated by the eviden
by abakker 3y ago
This argument kind of elides over how you will make the millions, when the author has not.
The hypothetical of lost revenue needs to be validated by the evidence of actual revenue being made in this way. Right now, I see lots of interest in paying for the _tool_, but almost none in paying human wages for the _output_ of generative models.
(I am not proposing that my above distinction is a legal test. Just pointing out that all these arguments would be more credible if actual ai generated works were being sold by AI companies)
- rvz 3y agoAs long as it is public domain it does not matter how the millions is made; ebook, book or newsletter. There is no recognition of 'lost revenue' for the commercialization of public domain works.
- abakker 3y agoI don't disagree at all. The OP I was responding to mentioned non-public-domain works like a blog. My point was that we haven't yet seen the products of GenAI stuff really making money yet. People are paying for the tool, and people are paying for work that is being done using the tool, but nobody buys a book, image, movie, or similar from OpenAI or Google directly.