5 ms·
If you can't run your business without violating the property rights of millions of people, maybe your business shouldn't exist.
by __loam 3y ago
If you can't run your business without violating the property rights of millions of people, maybe your business shouldn't exist.
- artninja1988 3y agoThese models will exist one way or another. Even the most IP concerned lawmakers in the deepest pockets of the RIAA and whatnot. It's just that some want there to be monopoly rents payed to themselves every time someone uses them
- nomel 3y agoMaybe profit caps for models that use licensed/copyright content would make sense? That would leave general use of open source models alone, while still having the potential to flow money to the right people.
- jsheard 3y ago> These models will exist one way or another. This line of reasoning seems more or less equivalent to "movie piracy will exist one way or another, therefore I should be allowed to launch a commercial Netflix competitor which streams movies without paying the studios". Just because it's possible to appropriate content doesn't mean we should just give up and put it in the public domain, that's obviously not sustainable.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoActually that sounds great. Commercial piracy netflix competitor please and thank you.
- jsheard 3y agoSounds great until the entertainment industry collapses because the inconvenience barrier which kept piracy at reasonable levels vanishes, with every theatre, TV channel and streaming service suddenly no longer paying for anything they show. I think you know that's not going to work.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoYeah, but wouldn’t it be a heck of a lot of fun
- nomel 3y agoThis comment is direct, but not unreasonable. To steel man it... The success of the LLM were built by the work product of others, without compensation. Now those others are looking for their due compensation. Freely profiting off the, quite literally, compressed output of others isn't really a business model that's sustainable, for either side. The only sustainable solution would necessarily involves money going from the content users (multi B $ LLM companies) to the content producers (artists, news orgs, etc). For a logical litmus test, apply what's happening to any other content/industry.
- __loam 3y agoI'm not sure AI businesses would be viable if they had to license all the content in addition to paying all the compute costs. But, that really isn't the rightsholders' problem.
- madeofpalk 3y agoThat's the clearest indication that OpenAI should be seeking permissions and paying rightsholders for training data. If OpenAI loses value as a company if it does not have that content, that indicates the content has value, and OpenAI should pay for the materials they 'use' to create their own value.
- stale2002 3y agoHey thats fine if you have that opinion. I just hope you are consistent in that you oppose the existing ubiquitous copyright violations done by the entire art industry, in the form of commercial "fan art", or similar. A whole lot of content is built off of other people's works, and much of it is not done "in fair use", but of course, then the shoe is on the other foot, those same creators complain.
- __loam 3y agoI have a lot of trouble taking this obviously bad faith argument seriously. Aside from the fact that we're comparing random fan artists with well resourced tech corporations that trained on hundreds of millions of images, most rightsholders seem to appreciate that fan art is free publicity for them. If nobody is going after fan art, then there's not really a problem. On the other hand, many people and organizations seem pretty happy to file suits against OpenAI.