4 ms·

New bill would force AI companies to reveal use of copyrighted art

17 points by marban 3y ago

tick_tock_tick 3y ago
Ok so they submit a billion images now what? It's becoming increasingly clear that AI will not be found in violation of current copyright laws so unless we get a major rework of them why does this matter?
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  If OpenAI believes its use of copyrighted content is fair use - meaning explicitly unauthorized but permissible by the law - then it should feel confident in revealing what it is trained on. I personally believe that if the guilded creatives say they are being harmed, well, then it becomes true in all the ways that matter. It's on OpenAI to persuade them that isn't the case, and if they are persuaded, then they are no longer being harmed. Harder to say for something like, "the programmers," who have had ample opportunities to organize and have so far chosen not to. So just because many programmers use OpenAI to aid in coding, doesn't mean that there aren't some programmers being harmed. It seems legit to me that the law should provide affordances for every Tom, Dick and Harry to become a plaintiff against OpenAI, and that OpenAI can't hide behind the veil of "trade secrets" or whatever, for a fact that will come up in discovery anyway.
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    > It's on OpenAI to persuade them that isn't the case What no they can 100% be "harmed" and have zero legal recourse nor extract any demands from OpenAI or any other AI companies. > It seems legit to me that the law should provide affordances for every Tom, Dick and Harry to become a plaintiff against OpenAI I agree and Tom, Dick, and Harry should be made to pay both sides legal fees for abusing the court system and filing frivolous lawsuits.
vineetch 3y ago
Great way to get California tech companies that use any form of AI (which is all of them) to re-incorporate in an island nation instead.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
This won't matter if copyrighted material's copying for the purposes of training is found to be fair use anyway. Once that's done you can't legislate your way out of it because fair use is constitutionally required to exist as it does today. Even if Congress deleted the entire section from the law, courts would continue applying it out of precedent alone.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pksebben 3y ago
I think we're approaching a situation where UBI will become essential not because "it's a public good" (although, IMO it ought to be), but because it will actually be healthy for businesses at scale. Factor 1: Very rich people and very poor people don't spend money. In less simple terms, very rich people don't spend significant portions of their money, and very poor people don't have any money to spend. Flow of capital is necessary for the economy to keep functioning and a UBI is the best way to avoid systemic collapses. Factor 2: AI needs to eat IP is a bloody mess. The way we manage intellectual ownership is totally broken, and it's going to have a really deleterious effect on creativity moving forward. This generalizes through the arts, tech, journalism, etc. AI is only going to make this worse - UNLESS we implement UBI. Then, people who believe in good journalism can all become journalists, people who have creative talent can all become artists, and people who like to code can all do that. If you no longer have to worry about housing and feeding yourself, you can spend whatever time is necessary creating new stuff. Without the need to have this be financially generative, it'll be a whole lot easier to convince people to allow their work to be used in training, and rather than having hungry money vacuums that undermine creative work, AI can be essentially a search engine for prior work (allowing all the creatives to focus on novel creations, rather than constantly reinventing the wheel). I realize how pollyanna this seems, but I believe it's possible (even if it's incredibly difficult to get there from here).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

17 points by marban 3y ago

Ok so they submit a billion images now what? It's becoming increasingly clear that AI will not be found in violation of current copyright laws so unless we get a major rework of them why does this matter?

doctorpangloss 3y ago
If OpenAI believes its use of copyrighted content is fair use - meaning explicitly unauthorized but permissible by the law - then it should feel confident in revealing what it is trained on. I personally believe that if the guilded creatives say they are being harmed, well, then it becomes true in all the ways that matter. It's on OpenAI to persuade them that isn't the case, and if they are persuaded, then they are no longer being harmed. Harder to say for something like, "the programmers," who have had ample opportunities to organize and have so far chosen not to. So just because many programmers use OpenAI to aid in coding, doesn't mean that there aren't some programmers being harmed. It seems legit to me that the law should provide affordances for every Tom, Dick and Harry to become a plaintiff against OpenAI, and that OpenAI can't hide behind the veil of "trade secrets" or whatever, for a fact that will come up in discovery anyway.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  > It's on OpenAI to persuade them that isn't the case What no they can 100% be "harmed" and have zero legal recourse nor extract any demands from OpenAI or any other AI companies. > It seems legit to me that the law should provide affordances for every Tom, Dick and Harry to become a plaintiff against OpenAI I agree and Tom, Dick, and Harry should be made to pay both sides legal fees for abusing the court system and filing frivolous lawsuits.

vineetch 3y ago

Great way to get California tech companies that use any form of AI (which is all of them) to re-incorporate in an island nation instead.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

This won't matter if copyrighted material's copying for the purposes of training is found to be fair use anyway. Once that's done you can't legislate your way out of it because fair use is constitutionally required to exist as it does today. Even if Congress deleted the entire section from the law, courts would continue applying it out of precedent alone.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pksebben 3y ago

I think we're approaching a situation where UBI will become essential not because "it's a public good" (although, IMO it ought to be), but because it will actually be healthy for businesses at scale. Factor 1: Very rich people and very poor people don't spend money. In less simple terms, very rich people don't spend significant portions of their money, and very poor people don't have any money to spend. Flow of capital is necessary for the economy to keep functioning and a UBI is the best way to avoid systemic collapses. Factor 2: AI needs to eat IP is a bloody mess. The way we manage intellectual ownership is totally broken, and it's going to have a really deleterious effect on creativity moving forward. This generalizes through the arts, tech, journalism, etc. AI is only going to make this worse - UNLESS we implement UBI. Then, people who believe in good journalism can all become journalists, people who have creative talent can all become artists, and people who like to code can all do that. If you no longer have to worry about housing and feeding yourself, you can spend whatever time is necessary creating new stuff. Without the need to have this be financially generative, it'll be a whole lot easier to convince people to allow their work to be used in training, and rather than having hungry money vacuums that undermine creative work, AI can be essentially a search engine for prior work (allowing all the creatives to focus on novel creations, rather than constantly reinventing the wheel). I realize how pollyanna this seems, but I believe it's possible (even if it's incredibly difficult to get there from here).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]