3 ms·

The chances of creators beating Big Tech on this one? Zero. Just see how the incentives are aligned. If the creators win, Big Tech has to pay millions/billions

The chances of creators beating Big Tech on this one? Zero. Just see how the incentives are aligned. If the creators win, Big Tech has to pay millions/billions to them and reduce their profit margins. If creators lose, Big Tech can provide even more money to political donations. This said, even if this wasn't the case, I don't think creators have the moral/legal standing to win even if the decision was entirely fair given many arguments discussed on HN and elsewhere.

buildbot 3y ago
Big tech would _love_ to "loose" these cases so they can gain a complete monopoly on it. It would take massive capital to pay the aggregate license holders, working in Capital's favor.
- glimshe 3y ago
  Not paying will be even cheaper. They don't need this to obtain the de facto monopoly given the massive costs in training. Even if other companies offer their own AI, it will be for niche scenarios (like character creation for games), and training will use Big Tech's cloud resources. So they will corner general purpose AI and will extract hefty fees for special cases. If creators win, many companies will be unable to cover niches (which are unprofitable for Big Tech but not smaller companies, and will become more so with creator fees) and thus fewer resources will go to cloud services.
  - buildbot 3y ago
    > Not paying will be even cheaper. They don't need this to obtain the de facto monopoly given the massive costs in training. Even if other companies offer their own AI, it will be for niche scenarios (like character creation for games), and training will use Big Tech's cloud resources. The massive costs of training is why they will pay, in order to lock out others. If you spend _billions_ in training, who cares about a 10 million dollar dataset? The rest of you argument reads more like a push for exactly what the article calls for. Many companies will not be able to amass large datasets to attempt to compete with large companies if they have to pay for it. What happens if Cool AI Startup spends 50% of their funding on a dataset, but it's useless after months of experiments? Large companies can easily absorb those costs, small companies can't.

buildbot 3y ago

Big tech would _love_ to "loose" these cases so they can gain a complete monopoly on it. It would take massive capital to pay the aggregate license holders, working in Capital's favor.

glimshe 3y ago
Not paying will be even cheaper. They don't need this to obtain the de facto monopoly given the massive costs in training. Even if other companies offer their own AI, it will be for niche scenarios (like character creation for games), and training will use Big Tech's cloud resources. So they will corner general purpose AI and will extract hefty fees for special cases. If creators win, many companies will be unable to cover niches (which are unprofitable for Big Tech but not smaller companies, and will become more so with creator fees) and thus fewer resources will go to cloud services.
- buildbot 3y ago
  > Not paying will be even cheaper. They don't need this to obtain the de facto monopoly given the massive costs in training. Even if other companies offer their own AI, it will be for niche scenarios (like character creation for games), and training will use Big Tech's cloud resources. The massive costs of training is why they will pay, in order to lock out others. If you spend _billions_ in training, who cares about a 10 million dollar dataset? The rest of you argument reads more like a push for exactly what the article calls for. Many companies will not be able to amass large datasets to attempt to compete with large companies if they have to pay for it. What happens if Cool AI Startup spends 50% of their funding on a dataset, but it's useless after months of experiments? Large companies can easily absorb those costs, small companies can't.