3 ms·

If companies are required to purchase licenses for everything they train on, it will guarantee that only huge corporations with deep pockets can produce powerfu

If companies are required to purchase licenses for everything they train on, it will guarantee that only huge corporations with deep pockets can produce powerful models. Microsoft will be slightly inconvenienced, Stability AI will be destroyed. Some artists might get a payday, but most of the money will go to companies with large copyright libraries like Getty. The general quality of all models will decrease. I don't see any other possible outcome.

teddyh 3y ago
Almost a year ago, I made¹ the following prediction: It looks like to me that many companies want to use the new generative tools, and many others want it not to impact their stake in the copyright system. I’m pretty sure they will both come to a compromise which will leave most users without any benefits, either from reduced copyrights or from availability of generative tools. It’s what would make both powerful parties satisfied (if not happy), and will impact the status quo the least. Say, for instance, that they instituted a mostly mandatory licensing scheme, so that an individual artist had no choice but to allow use of their art as input when creating generative tools. People using art in this way have to pay a rather high licensing fee, but it is not paid to the artist, but to some sort of central copyright office. Huge copyright holders can also pay an exorbitantly high fee (to the same recipient) to opt out of licensing. Win-win-win; Existing copyright holders keep their existing copyrights, only large-ish actors can create new generative tools, new political positions and institutions are created with lots of money flowing in. Of course, artists then get screwed by being co-opted by generative tools which they can never afford to create themselves, and the general public get robbed both of the opportunity of using and creating new generative tools, and of any less restrictive copyright law. 1. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191112>
- et1337 3y ago
  I hope you’re wrong, but I think you’re right.
- kolinko 3y ago
  For music there are already similar mechanisms in place in many countries - in Poland it's ZAiKS, in US it's ASCAP. They collect fees from organisations playing copyrighted music publicly. (I agree that it would be terrible if they began enforcing other copyrighted content and for training purposes, because it would lead to centralisation)
  - PoignardAzur 3y ago
    Sacem in France. They're the worst, eg they will notoriously come after you if you play public domain music as well.
kevingadd 3y ago
For many artists this is not about "getting a payday" and is instead about "not being replaced by AI". So the outcome you describe would probably sound great to those artists.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  How did dock workers feel wen containerized shipping starting gaining popularity? Should we have let them all continue putting things on ships piece b piece and stacking and unstacking each shipment by hand? How did portrait artists feel when photography was gaining popularity? Should we have let them control the industry so that if we want to record a memory of a person we must have them stand or sit for hours while someone draws them? etc.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Man there's always someone in these discussions who will smugly tell us that this is all inevitable and our empathy for the creatives in our economy is misplaced. To you I give a hearty fuck you.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      No, I am describing what happens when technology makes the market for certain jobs and talents change. The stevedores may have had a bad time for a while but our modern society only exists because we can ship things quickly and efficiently. I feel bad for copy editors and people who write corporate blog posts or design logos or come up with ad jingles, but their niche is gone now and they need to adapt. Thanks for being respectful and cordial though.
      - __loam 3y ago
        I often see these processes described as passive economic mechanisms that we are subjected to and not as decisions that we all make collectively and actively accept, making excuses based on the neoliberal understanding of our time as to why those people deserve to have their jobs made redundant and their livings wrenched from them. To me, it's a kind of cowardice that people like you shrug your shoulders at and sigh and say "that's just the way things are". You can say that's just how the markets work. I don't have to respect you for it.
vidarh 3y ago
In agreement with your "slightly inconvenienced": The world's dozen or so largest publishers have market caps averaging below $10bn range each. "Even" just OpenAI alone could pocket a few of them if they need easy sources of acquiring content. This includes the largest educational publishers. And while these publishers do not own all their content, the reality is most authors earn so little, that a "allow AI training on my work for $x extra" would give them vast amounts of content. As for Getty, Getty has a market cap of "only" $2bn. The big players will easily afford to build or buy libraries like that. But of course it will be the end of decent open models.
nomel 3y ago
> it will guarantee that only huge corporations with deep pockets can produce powerful models It will also guarantee that the financial means to continue making that data, that is clearly so important, would be preserved. Someone has to pay for the crafting of the data.

teddyh 3y ago

Almost a year ago, I made¹ the following prediction: It looks like to me that many companies want to use the new generative tools, and many others want it not to impact their stake in the copyright system. I’m pretty sure they will both come to a compromise which will leave most users without any benefits, either from reduced copyrights or from availability of generative tools. It’s what would make both powerful parties satisfied (if not happy), and will impact the status quo the least. Say, for instance, that they instituted a mostly mandatory licensing scheme, so that an individual artist had no choice but to allow use of their art as input when creating generative tools. People using art in this way have to pay a rather high licensing fee, but it is not paid to the artist, but to some sort of central copyright office. Huge copyright holders can also pay an exorbitantly high fee (to the same recipient) to opt out of licensing. Win-win-win; Existing copyright holders keep their existing copyrights, only large-ish actors can create new generative tools, new political positions and institutions are created with lots of money flowing in. Of course, artists then get screwed by being co-opted by generative tools which they can never afford to create themselves, and the general public get robbed both of the opportunity of using and creating new generative tools, and of any less restrictive copyright law. 1. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191112>

et1337 3y ago
I hope you’re wrong, but I think you’re right.
kolinko 3y ago
For music there are already similar mechanisms in place in many countries - in Poland it's ZAiKS, in US it's ASCAP. They collect fees from organisations playing copyrighted music publicly. (I agree that it would be terrible if they began enforcing other copyrighted content and for training purposes, because it would lead to centralisation)
- PoignardAzur 3y ago
  Sacem in France. They're the worst, eg they will notoriously come after you if you play public domain music as well.

kevingadd 3y ago

For many artists this is not about "getting a payday" and is instead about "not being replaced by AI". So the outcome you describe would probably sound great to those artists.

Eisenstein 3y ago
How did dock workers feel wen containerized shipping starting gaining popularity? Should we have let them all continue putting things on ships piece b piece and stacking and unstacking each shipment by hand? How did portrait artists feel when photography was gaining popularity? Should we have let them control the industry so that if we want to record a memory of a person we must have them stand or sit for hours while someone draws them? etc.
- __loam 3y ago
  Man there's always someone in these discussions who will smugly tell us that this is all inevitable and our empathy for the creatives in our economy is misplaced. To you I give a hearty fuck you.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    No, I am describing what happens when technology makes the market for certain jobs and talents change. The stevedores may have had a bad time for a while but our modern society only exists because we can ship things quickly and efficiently. I feel bad for copy editors and people who write corporate blog posts or design logos or come up with ad jingles, but their niche is gone now and they need to adapt. Thanks for being respectful and cordial though.
    - __loam 3y ago
      I often see these processes described as passive economic mechanisms that we are subjected to and not as decisions that we all make collectively and actively accept, making excuses based on the neoliberal understanding of our time as to why those people deserve to have their jobs made redundant and their livings wrenched from them. To me, it's a kind of cowardice that people like you shrug your shoulders at and sigh and say "that's just the way things are". You can say that's just how the markets work. I don't have to respect you for it.

vidarh 3y ago

In agreement with your "slightly inconvenienced": The world's dozen or so largest publishers have market caps averaging below $10bn range each. "Even" just OpenAI alone could pocket a few of them if they need easy sources of acquiring content. This includes the largest educational publishers. And while these publishers do not own all their content, the reality is most authors earn so little, that a "allow AI training on my work for $x extra" would give them vast amounts of content. As for Getty, Getty has a market cap of "only" $2bn. The big players will easily afford to build or buy libraries like that. But of course it will be the end of decent open models.

nomel 3y ago

> it will guarantee that only huge corporations with deep pockets can produce powerful models It will also guarantee that the financial means to continue making that data, that is clearly so important, would be preserved. Someone has to pay for the crafting of the data.