6 ms·

It's probably not the best idea to base your clone on the name that is being trademarked: https://trademarks.justia.com/984/05/sora-98405663.html https://tradem

by _flux 2y ago

It's probably not the best idea to base your clone on the name that is being trademarked: https://trademarks.justia.com/984/05/sora-98405663.html https://trademarks.justia.com/984/05/sora-98405663.html

__loam 2y ago
AI developers don't care about intellectual property.
- jampekka 2y ago
  Which is a positive turn of events. Intellectual property as a concept needs to go.
  - croes 2y ago
    That would give big companies a big advantage. It maybe wrong how it is now, but it exists for a reason. Same with patents.
    - jampekka 2y ago
      Disney must be close to divine managing to get such a marketshare despite IP regulations holding them back.
      - croes 2y ago
        Without IP it wouldn't be Disney but the first company with enough power and money would crush any competition. Even now they can fight in court until smaller opponents go bankrupt but without any IP they wouldn't even have to fight. Remember when Amazon copied successful products on their marketplace? That would be the norm and you could even blame or sue them.
  - jsheard 2y ago
    It's a one-way street with AI companies though, they are against IP protection for training data but support IP protection for the product of that training. Read the TOS/license of nearly any big model and it's clear the creator considers it and its output to be their IP and they will fight to restrict how you can use it for commercial purposes or training competing models, because those being a free-for-all would get in the way of their business model. In practice it's less "abolishing intellectual property" and more "transmuting everyone else's IP into their own IP so they can be the ultimate IP landlords".
    - jampekka 2y ago
      Sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. Micr.. OpenAI can manage to brib.. convince a judge to make government to enforce this by force. But how ML is at least currently developing, other megacorporations and universities are only a year or so behind OpenAI etc, and publishing their weights and models. Of course disregarding training set IP because otherwise keeping up would be impossible. If the media and advertising megacorporations manage to get a ban on training on IP material, Micr.. OpenAI would be a huge benefactor, as they could afford some weird licensing deal on everybody's data and the actual open efforts would be extinguished. Luckily US hegemony is fading and many other powers DGAF anymore what a US judge says. Or a WTO judge, because USA kind of destroyed WTO themselves already.
      - __loam 2y ago
        If they ban training on IP, it's not unlikely that GPT 4 would be subject to algorithmic disgorgement
    - nortonsdad 2y ago
      Unless the entity they're taking from can defend themselves in court. Just ask Copilot to generate an image in the style of AI hater Tim Burton and you'll get a ToS wrong-think violation. So really it is just for taking from small fries.
  - spookie 2y ago
    Why is that the case? The way its implemented is no longer fit for today's world, but as a concept? That's a whole other story.
    - jampekka 2y ago
      IP is a huge drag on the progress of mankind. Ideally there would other ways than economical to facilitate production of intellectual goods. Ownership economies are exceptionally bad in non-scarce resources. There are some alternative and less destructive ways to handle the economy already in place. Academic institutions generally don't claim or enforce IP (paywalls are more a corporate than academic thing). Many library systems pay authors (notably not the publishers) for each loan from public funds. Open source software is funded via services (and increasingly with ads, which is not necessarily great). State enforced monopoly on ideas or lumps of matter isn't the only way of structuring the economy. Alternatives haven't been discussed in 30 or so years, so it's understandable that many have hard time even conceptualizing such.
      - _flux 2y ago
        Is IP on names also a huge drag? Would it be beneficial to the mankind if I—or anyone—were able to just make their own Linux or Nginx, with no relation to the group that originally made it? Arguably "first come, first serve" policy on names per domain is a good one and serves to reduce confusion.
        jampekka 2y ago
        Monopoly on usage of a name not so much, although how it is implemented (or enforced) has substantial problems too. Companies regularly hijack commonly used words as "property" and/or push their monopolized names to the general vocabulary (e.g. iPhone, iPad, App Store, Googling, Kleenex, Xerox) especially in the USA and then literally police how people can use the words. Yes, they should lose the "property" if they do so, but in practice they lose it decades too late if even then. Also trademarks being sellable means that at any moment the product with a trademark can have nothing to do with the original holder, partly defeating the rationale.
  - ADeerAppeared 2y ago
    No. AI firms are a good example of precisely why copyright was put in place. Right now, AI is taking people's original works and rehashing them in a way that directly competes with the original work. Some AI firms (e.g. perplexity) just have their LLMs paraphrase the work lightly. This is a problem because it drives original work out of business. Even setting aside matters of originality, artistic value, and AI being vapid slop: Gen-AI is and will remain a derivative work that is reliant on original human-made work ChatGPT is not going to do investigative journalism. If we let AI push all journalists into bankruptcy, the news just becomes an endless sewer of PR statements recycled into AI slop. If you don't want Google's woke "diverse nazis" to push real news into bankruptcy, copyright is needed to stop them.
    - selestify 2y ago
      We should find new ways to fund essential services like journalism and the arts, rather than artificially crimping the possibilities of new technology in order to get a half-assed solution under the current paradigm.
      - __loam 2y ago
        Until we find the political will to do that, creating products that fuck over journalism is shitty.
    - FeepingCreature 2y ago
      All (99%) the music I listen to is remixes, all (99%) the writing I read is fanfic. > Right now, AI is taking people's original works and rehashing them in a way that directly competes with the original work. Good. Taking people's original works and rehashing them in direct competition fosters, not harms, cultural flourishing.
  - kriops 2y ago
    If you think for more than a few seconds on the matter, you quickly realise that intellectual property is a moral necessity, because intellectual expropriation (which is what you are really talking about) would destroy a major incentive for positive contributions to society. Everything political is rooted in morality, and while it is easy to point out political challenges on the topic, intellectual property is ethically an unambiguously good concept.
    - Joeri 2y ago
      Most of the great art was created in a world without intellectual property, or with no effective IP enforcement on that art. While I don’t think all IP should be abolished, I think in general there is too much of it, protected for too long, and society would be better off getting rid of patents and dramatically downsizing copyright to at most a few decades of protection. (And yes I have thought a lot on this matter. The evidence behind patents being overall beneficial is weak, and there is no effective societal argument for the current copyright terms.)
      - fletchedx 2y ago
        I tend to agree with your takeaway, but I want to pick a nit on your point about great art being made without copyright. "The Most Powerful Idea in the World" basically makes the case that intellectual property is what enabled the Industrial Revolution. I won't try to summarize or defend the entire thing here, but I think it makes a very compelling case that the notion of "owning ideas as property" was the thing that made Britain unique (among other factors of course) and led to runaway technological explosion. It points out how in earlier times, inventors were literally killed for coming up with better methods that threatened some established system. So there is a big difference between art and technology there, and while I think debating the merits of copyright as it pertains to art is valid (and 100% agree it's overdone in our current system), I'm not convinced the current issues are serious enough to undermine the entire concept of intellectual property.
        jampekka 2y ago
        Enslaving half of the world also played a slight part in that uniqueness.
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    Intellectual property in the form of trademarks is generally good for consumers, you don't want a new database product to be called Postgres despite no association with the developers of PostgreSQL. Intellectual property in the form of patents and copyrights is often harmful for consumers. In music, academia and mechanical engineering it's clearly been harmful in slowing the spread of innovation. It sucks to wait 20 years for a new excellent new dishwasher tray shape.
  - worldsayshi 2y ago
    I think intellectual property is necessary given the current way the economy works. But we should strive for evolving how the economy works.
    - __loam 2y ago
      I agree but in the mean time, stealing from millions of artists and writers to build systems with the goal of replacing them is incredibly shitty. If we lived in an economic system where people don't starve or lose their house when they don't have a job then I wouldn't care. Until then, OpenAI and its ilk are looters.
      - worldsayshi 2y ago
        > an economic system where people don't starve or lose their house when they don't have a job I think the AI industry is motivating this for themselves with the idea that this does (at least partially) lead us to that world.
  - __loam 2y ago
    Interesting that most engineers have this view despite their paycheck largely depending on ip
- Jiahang 2y ago
  this is a issue
- luqtas 2y ago
  one of the phrases they used @ their example page maybe reads pretty clear :D > there are no text or logos in the video
logicchains 2y ago
It looks like it's being developed by a Chinese group. What's OpenAI going to do, sue them in a Chinese court?
- echelon 2y ago
  It's also kind of a humorous jab in that it's named "Open".
- ramshanker 2y ago
  Take down their GIT Repository with perfectly valid DMCA Notice, I guess?
  - kadoban 2y ago
    Does DMCA cover trademarks? I think it might only be for copyright.
    - _flux 2y ago
      They can probably sue GitHub then (their current hoster of their repo), the traditional way? Though actually I imagine GH would just close the repo before it comes to that, because it looks like a pretty clear case. I guess it's also possible OpenAI doesn't care about this.
      - kadoban 2y ago
        Yeah I'd imagine that GH has a way to report trademark abuse, or yes of course you can get lawyers involved. Since it's international that might get annoying unless you're fine just getting it off of GitHub and other hosts you can easily reach.

by _flux 2y ago

__loam 2y ago

AI developers don't care about intellectual property.

jampekka 2y ago
Which is a positive turn of events. Intellectual property as a concept needs to go.
- croes 2y ago
  That would give big companies a big advantage. It maybe wrong how it is now, but it exists for a reason. Same with patents.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    Disney must be close to divine managing to get such a marketshare despite IP regulations holding them back.
    - croes 2y ago
      Without IP it wouldn't be Disney but the first company with enough power and money would crush any competition. Even now they can fight in court until smaller opponents go bankrupt but without any IP they wouldn't even have to fight. Remember when Amazon copied successful products on their marketplace? That would be the norm and you could even blame or sue them.
- jsheard 2y ago
  It's a one-way street with AI companies though, they are against IP protection for training data but support IP protection for the product of that training. Read the TOS/license of nearly any big model and it's clear the creator considers it and its output to be their IP and they will fight to restrict how you can use it for commercial purposes or training competing models, because those being a free-for-all would get in the way of their business model. In practice it's less "abolishing intellectual property" and more "transmuting everyone else's IP into their own IP so they can be the ultimate IP landlords".
  - jampekka 2y ago
    Sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. Micr.. OpenAI can manage to brib.. convince a judge to make government to enforce this by force. But how ML is at least currently developing, other megacorporations and universities are only a year or so behind OpenAI etc, and publishing their weights and models. Of course disregarding training set IP because otherwise keeping up would be impossible. If the media and advertising megacorporations manage to get a ban on training on IP material, Micr.. OpenAI would be a huge benefactor, as they could afford some weird licensing deal on everybody's data and the actual open efforts would be extinguished. Luckily US hegemony is fading and many other powers DGAF anymore what a US judge says. Or a WTO judge, because USA kind of destroyed WTO themselves already.
    - __loam 2y ago
      If they ban training on IP, it's not unlikely that GPT 4 would be subject to algorithmic disgorgement
  - nortonsdad 2y ago
    Unless the entity they're taking from can defend themselves in court. Just ask Copilot to generate an image in the style of AI hater Tim Burton and you'll get a ToS wrong-think violation. So really it is just for taking from small fries.
- spookie 2y ago
  Why is that the case? The way its implemented is no longer fit for today's world, but as a concept? That's a whole other story.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    IP is a huge drag on the progress of mankind. Ideally there would other ways than economical to facilitate production of intellectual goods. Ownership economies are exceptionally bad in non-scarce resources. There are some alternative and less destructive ways to handle the economy already in place. Academic institutions generally don't claim or enforce IP (paywalls are more a corporate than academic thing). Many library systems pay authors (notably not the publishers) for each loan from public funds. Open source software is funded via services (and increasingly with ads, which is not necessarily great). State enforced monopoly on ideas or lumps of matter isn't the only way of structuring the economy. Alternatives haven't been discussed in 30 or so years, so it's understandable that many have hard time even conceptualizing such.
    - _flux 2y ago
      Is IP on names also a huge drag? Would it be beneficial to the mankind if I—or anyone—were able to just make their own Linux or Nginx, with no relation to the group that originally made it? Arguably "first come, first serve" policy on names per domain is a good one and serves to reduce confusion.
      - jampekka 2y ago
        Monopoly on usage of a name not so much, although how it is implemented (or enforced) has substantial problems too. Companies regularly hijack commonly used words as "property" and/or push their monopolized names to the general vocabulary (e.g. iPhone, iPad, App Store, Googling, Kleenex, Xerox) especially in the USA and then literally police how people can use the words. Yes, they should lose the "property" if they do so, but in practice they lose it decades too late if even then. Also trademarks being sellable means that at any moment the product with a trademark can have nothing to do with the original holder, partly defeating the rationale.
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  No. AI firms are a good example of precisely why copyright was put in place. Right now, AI is taking people's original works and rehashing them in a way that directly competes with the original work. Some AI firms (e.g. perplexity) just have their LLMs paraphrase the work lightly. This is a problem because it drives original work out of business. Even setting aside matters of originality, artistic value, and AI being vapid slop: Gen-AI is and will remain a derivative work that is reliant on original human-made work ChatGPT is not going to do investigative journalism. If we let AI push all journalists into bankruptcy, the news just becomes an endless sewer of PR statements recycled into AI slop. If you don't want Google's woke "diverse nazis" to push real news into bankruptcy, copyright is needed to stop them.
  - selestify 2y ago
    We should find new ways to fund essential services like journalism and the arts, rather than artificially crimping the possibilities of new technology in order to get a half-assed solution under the current paradigm.
    - __loam 2y ago
      Until we find the political will to do that, creating products that fuck over journalism is shitty.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    All (99%) the music I listen to is remixes, all (99%) the writing I read is fanfic. > Right now, AI is taking people's original works and rehashing them in a way that directly competes with the original work. Good. Taking people's original works and rehashing them in direct competition fosters, not harms, cultural flourishing.
- kriops 2y ago
  If you think for more than a few seconds on the matter, you quickly realise that intellectual property is a moral necessity, because intellectual expropriation (which is what you are really talking about) would destroy a major incentive for positive contributions to society. Everything political is rooted in morality, and while it is easy to point out political challenges on the topic, intellectual property is ethically an unambiguously good concept.
  - Joeri 2y ago
    Most of the great art was created in a world without intellectual property, or with no effective IP enforcement on that art. While I don’t think all IP should be abolished, I think in general there is too much of it, protected for too long, and society would be better off getting rid of patents and dramatically downsizing copyright to at most a few decades of protection. (And yes I have thought a lot on this matter. The evidence behind patents being overall beneficial is weak, and there is no effective societal argument for the current copyright terms.)
    - fletchedx 2y ago
      I tend to agree with your takeaway, but I want to pick a nit on your point about great art being made without copyright. "The Most Powerful Idea in the World" basically makes the case that intellectual property is what enabled the Industrial Revolution. I won't try to summarize or defend the entire thing here, but I think it makes a very compelling case that the notion of "owning ideas as property" was the thing that made Britain unique (among other factors of course) and led to runaway technological explosion. It points out how in earlier times, inventors were literally killed for coming up with better methods that threatened some established system. So there is a big difference between art and technology there, and while I think debating the merits of copyright as it pertains to art is valid (and 100% agree it's overdone in our current system), I'm not convinced the current issues are serious enough to undermine the entire concept of intellectual property.
      - jampekka 2y ago
        Enslaving half of the world also played a slight part in that uniqueness.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Intellectual property in the form of trademarks is generally good for consumers, you don't want a new database product to be called Postgres despite no association with the developers of PostgreSQL. Intellectual property in the form of patents and copyrights is often harmful for consumers. In music, academia and mechanical engineering it's clearly been harmful in slowing the spread of innovation. It sucks to wait 20 years for a new excellent new dishwasher tray shape.
- worldsayshi 2y ago
  I think intellectual property is necessary given the current way the economy works. But we should strive for evolving how the economy works.
  - __loam 2y ago
    I agree but in the mean time, stealing from millions of artists and writers to build systems with the goal of replacing them is incredibly shitty. If we lived in an economic system where people don't starve or lose their house when they don't have a job then I wouldn't care. Until then, OpenAI and its ilk are looters.
    - worldsayshi 2y ago
      > an economic system where people don't starve or lose their house when they don't have a job I think the AI industry is motivating this for themselves with the idea that this does (at least partially) lead us to that world.
- __loam 2y ago
  Interesting that most engineers have this view despite their paycheck largely depending on ip
Jiahang 2y ago
this is a issue
luqtas 2y ago
one of the phrases they used @ their example page maybe reads pretty clear :D > there are no text or logos in the video

logicchains 2y ago

It looks like it's being developed by a Chinese group. What's OpenAI going to do, sue them in a Chinese court?

echelon 2y ago
It's also kind of a humorous jab in that it's named "Open".
ramshanker 2y ago
Take down their GIT Repository with perfectly valid DMCA Notice, I guess?
- kadoban 2y ago
  Does DMCA cover trademarks? I think it might only be for copyright.
  - _flux 2y ago
    They can probably sue GitHub then (their current hoster of their repo), the traditional way? Though actually I imagine GH would just close the repo before it comes to that, because it looks like a pretty clear case. I guess it's also possible OpenAI doesn't care about this.
    - kadoban 2y ago
      Yeah I'd imagine that GH has a way to report trademark abuse, or yes of course you can get lawyers involved. Since it's international that might get annoying unless you're fine just getting it off of GitHub and other hosts you can easily reach.