4 ms·

My point is that in these discussions, don't make the mistake of considering the artificial thing ("it's copyrightable/it's not copyrightable"). Rather, conside

by mlsu 3y ago

My point is that in these discussions, don't make the mistake of considering the artificial thing ("it's copyrightable/it's not copyrightable"). Rather, consider the real thing ("You will pay a licensing fee to use your GPU").

johnnyanmac 3y ago
I'm still confused. Sure, a GPU is a real, physical thing. But licenses and fees are no more or less fiction than copyright. A license says "I have permission from the company makers to use this product", similar to how copyright is "you must get permission from me to use my product". But for the sake of this discussion: I don't think anyone can assume those permissions when using a tool to generate the base image. Ironically enough, it may make more sense to have artists for concepting, copyrighting the character or world so you obtain those permissions, and then using AI to ramp up production. That's an inversion of what's happening for early AI usage. The main question is how much concepting is needed to copyright a character? Making a few sketches in private? Releasing a full work first with no AI on what you want to copyright?
- cush 3y ago
  > Copyright is not a real thing. > - I think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own arguments > licensing fee... It took them exactly one reply. New record
- mlsu 3y ago
  Sigh. I know that everyone is chomping at the bit to logically own me in this thread, and that's fine -- have your fun. There are a dozen comments informing me that "IP law around AI" and "fiat currency" are both made-up, and that's obviously true. Right now "fiat currency" or "contracts" is settled. We are not radically redefining what those are (despite the web3 crowd's insistence). The story around IP with regards to AI is quite different. We are at a fork in the road. It is actually up to us to decide what AI fundamentally is, as it relates to IP. It's genuinely up in the air, and gives us an opportunity to re-examine some aspects of how we treat ownership of information. In my opinion, this is a good thing and an exercise worth doing. A chance to re-do some of what the internet failed at. Remember Aaron Swartz? Personally, I'm quite cynical: I think the existing social power structure will win and absorb AI into its IP regime. AI will be locked down even faster than the internet was, because value can so obviously captured. The winners will be Disney, Sony, Warner, Elsevier... we'll all be poorer for it. But yeah! Good thing people can't make images of Spider Man?
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I apologize for unknowingly dogpiling on you (there were maybe 3 replies when I made mine). I genuinely wanted to understand your POV on what man made concepts were "real" vs. "fake". I think dividing it into "settled" vs "unsettled" makes a lot more sense. We can argue which concepts are really "settled", but given IP concepts as recent as DMCA it's safe to call software IP unsettled. >Personally, I'm quite cynical: I think the existing social power structure will win and absorb AI into its IP regime Yes, that's my fear as well. Which is why I hope these LLVMs get reigned in before it gets out of hand, as it did with DMCA (very rarely used to make sure proper parties are compensated and used just as often to make digital creators kowtow to the whims of the elite). In your words, I don't see a future where AI wins these cases and the little guy gets to make images of Spiderman without Sony/Marvel/whoever squashing them down. All while probably using that artist's own prompts and existing art to make Spiderman 57.
karmakaze 3y ago
It's only real if you believe it has value. If you choose to say copyright is made up and doesn't have real value then it isn't real to you, but recognize that it's arbitrary as others will believe in the value of copyright so still has value in their eyes. e.g. Taking a copyright from someone (if that were possible) would cost them like taking a fee costs them--losing something they value.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by mlsu 3y ago

johnnyanmac 3y ago

I'm still confused. Sure, a GPU is a real, physical thing. But licenses and fees are no more or less fiction than copyright. A license says "I have permission from the company makers to use this product", similar to how copyright is "you must get permission from me to use my product". But for the sake of this discussion: I don't think anyone can assume those permissions when using a tool to generate the base image. Ironically enough, it may make more sense to have artists for concepting, copyrighting the character or world so you obtain those permissions, and then using AI to ramp up production. That's an inversion of what's happening for early AI usage. The main question is how much concepting is needed to copyright a character? Making a few sketches in private? Releasing a full work first with no AI on what you want to copyright?

cush 3y ago
> Copyright is not a real thing. > - I think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own arguments > licensing fee... It took them exactly one reply. New record
mlsu 3y ago
Sigh. I know that everyone is chomping at the bit to logically own me in this thread, and that's fine -- have your fun. There are a dozen comments informing me that "IP law around AI" and "fiat currency" are both made-up, and that's obviously true. Right now "fiat currency" or "contracts" is settled. We are not radically redefining what those are (despite the web3 crowd's insistence). The story around IP with regards to AI is quite different. We are at a fork in the road. It is actually up to us to decide what AI fundamentally is, as it relates to IP. It's genuinely up in the air, and gives us an opportunity to re-examine some aspects of how we treat ownership of information. In my opinion, this is a good thing and an exercise worth doing. A chance to re-do some of what the internet failed at. Remember Aaron Swartz? Personally, I'm quite cynical: I think the existing social power structure will win and absorb AI into its IP regime. AI will be locked down even faster than the internet was, because value can so obviously captured. The winners will be Disney, Sony, Warner, Elsevier... we'll all be poorer for it. But yeah! Good thing people can't make images of Spider Man?
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I apologize for unknowingly dogpiling on you (there were maybe 3 replies when I made mine). I genuinely wanted to understand your POV on what man made concepts were "real" vs. "fake". I think dividing it into "settled" vs "unsettled" makes a lot more sense. We can argue which concepts are really "settled", but given IP concepts as recent as DMCA it's safe to call software IP unsettled. >Personally, I'm quite cynical: I think the existing social power structure will win and absorb AI into its IP regime Yes, that's my fear as well. Which is why I hope these LLVMs get reigned in before it gets out of hand, as it did with DMCA (very rarely used to make sure proper parties are compensated and used just as often to make digital creators kowtow to the whims of the elite). In your words, I don't see a future where AI wins these cases and the little guy gets to make images of Spiderman without Sony/Marvel/whoever squashing them down. All while probably using that artist's own prompts and existing art to make Spiderman 57.

karmakaze 3y ago

It's only real if you believe it has value. If you choose to say copyright is made up and doesn't have real value then it isn't real to you, but recognize that it's arbitrary as others will believe in the value of copyright so still has value in their eyes. e.g. Taking a copyright from someone (if that were possible) would cost them like taking a fee costs them--losing something they value.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]