4 ms·

it could make life better for a lot of people, but training their models on copyright material, which makes life worse for another set of people.

• MBCook 2y ago
  Right. If what they’re doing is so incredibly valuable, just pay for the resources you’re using. If your business model only works if you steal stuff from other people you don’t have a business.
  • rockemsockem 2y ago
    Not commenting on open AI specifically, but I feel like actually acquiring the data is borderline impossible if you only follow legal channels. Where can I insert my money to buy every penguin random house book? How do I pay every deviant art artist whatever amount they're owed?
    • MBCook 2y ago
      You could go to Penguin directly. Or perhaps the Authors Guild would help you set something up across publishers. All of deviant art? Probably not. But do you need to train on all of that? You could certainly run ads telling people you’d be willing to pay a small amount to train on their art and let them choose. Would it be legal to train against the national archives? Options exist. No you won’t get as much stuff as you do by taking whatever you want, but people are being compensated for their work or at least being given the choice to opt in.
      • rockemsockem 2y ago
        Those sound like really large obstacles. Also, projecting this thinking forward, if we have humanoid robots walking around assisting humans, should they not be able to learn from their environment without paying every time they look at a piece of art or read something?
      • tavavex 2y ago
        Ignoring the actual legality of using training data in machine learning, let's look at these "options" in a purely objective-driven way. If you do that, you'll quickly realize that what you describe would strengthen megacorporations to an even greater extent. If training on public data is banned, then the entities who have complete ownership of all their data would be granted a de facto monopoly. Stock image services, media conglomerates, music labels, industry giants would start in the winning position. When one side just gets their way for free and the other has to beg for scraps, do you really think this is a fair proposition? The reason why open-source AI exists at all is that we've always been allowing use of public data - it was okay when Google did it, it was okay when the Internet Archive did it, it was even okay when text translation services used that same data to train their models - or really, that applies to basically anything ML-driven before generative AI. There's, like, a sea of reasons to criticize OpenAI for - but arguing for extending IP laws even further and calling out opponents for "literal theft" is one of the weaker options that caught on with many people.
    • qbxk 2y ago
      you're not wrong, and i think the technology exists to accomplish something that did this, and has for a few years. but the end result would be a system that funnels money from large numbers of people, to different large numbers of people. and a lot of overlap and cross payments too. maybe there's a good business in transaction fees on that? but it seems like big numbers going to other people while a much smaller number goes to the party owning the system is not an appealing business in our world. ipso facto why does it not exist while spotify buys podcasts and kills them
  • throwaway115 2y ago
    Sounds like you're using the music industry's definition of "steal." Nothing was stolen, because nobody was deprived of the thing.
    • visarga 2y ago
      In this case it just sounds like her , not even a direct copy
• visarga 2y ago
  Creatives will use AI even more than regular people and with better results. What I find dangerous is to protect all paraphrases and variations as well, akin to owning an idea. When not replicating expression ideas should be free, even in copyrights works
• wraptile 2y ago
  I think majority agrees that we're ok with a few millionaire priviledge actors losing small amount of their value in favor of personal AI assistants for general populace. How is that even a topic worth discussing is trully perplexing.
  • krainboltgreene 2y ago
    No man, a majority do not believe that and it's really weird that you think they do.
    • wraptile 2y ago
      Why? The data clearly points that nobody will go out of their way to protect IP laws. In majority of the world nobody could care less about some hollywood actor with tough to spell name getting their voice cloned. It's really weird that someone would think that IP law is more important than access to information. Must be some dystopian bubble.
      • krainboltgreene 2y ago
        Just because companies are violating people's artistic ownership and the State isn't punishing or preventing it fast enough is not an indication that a majority of people "could care less". If anything you can see the fomenting dislike with OpenAI right in front of you. You can frame it however you like to make it justifiable, but I'm not going to get into the mud with you.
        • wraptile 2y ago
          You're building a strawman here. The topic is whether information access is more important in our society than IP protection and the answer is big yes no matter how you look at it and I don't see you ever winning this argument. Take care o/
          • krainboltgreene 2y ago