3 ms·

Current laws are insufficient to address this, but we will end up using them to adjudicate whether or not this is fair use. We will get there in due time, and t

Current laws are insufficient to address this, but we will end up using them to adjudicate whether or not this is fair use. We will get there in due time, and the pathway will be messy. I am ambivalent about this overall, but few things are clear. Someone getting sued does not automatically mean they are wrong and whoever is suing is right. We don't know the rules, and hence the lawsuit. I see it being used as an evidence of wrongdoing, and seems plainly wrong. Every thing that becomes big ends up being sued (including the artists with allegations that they copied someone's work). Tells us nothing. (I think this part is clear) Reproducing content verbatim without permission, and for profit, is plain old plagiarism, whether it's done via AI or human. In some cases, with proper citations, it is allowed, but otherwise it's a no. For summarized content, with or without credit and citations, was always allowed, but never done at this scale, so this "social contract" might need to change.

courseofaction 2y ago
This is the leading edge of a conversation about the 'data' we emit moment to moment, digital and otherwise, and the right of powerful players to incorporate that into models which will definitely be used against us. The social contract has never been sacrosanct, it's enforced through social consequences. These companies don't feel social consequences, individuals making these psychopathic decisions are socially rewarded by their peers and allies, and financially rewarded in turn. Money is a flow of power, not of value. Especially post Bretton-Woods.
- ankit219 2y ago
  That is the contentious part. These are not easy questions. People talk about data, but individual data is as useless as they come for many companies. Data is only useful in aggregate and that too after reaching a certain scale. Counter intuitively, individual data (w or w/o PII) is more likely to be used for nefarious purposes compared to aggregated data. Aggregated data can lead to better user experiences, better utilization of our time, and can deliver more value to us (while delivering personalized ads). No one should create a blanket rule which bans aggregation given how it can ban Google Maps and Google search and Google ads in the same breath if interpreted broadly. With generative AI, the paradigm has changed and it needs a rethink. That was my original point. We don't have a clear answer yet.
torginus 2y ago
I'd say your optimism is unfounded - copyright in the digital realm started out as a free for all, and turned into a sh*tshow, that kinda is still unresolved to this day. And these are issues that arose 20, 30 years ago. If AI follows the digital copyright model, what'll happen is that interest groups with true legal muscle behind them (music, movie industry, etc.) will enforce their interests with draconian laws, and everybody else will be left to fend for themselves.

courseofaction 2y ago

This is the leading edge of a conversation about the 'data' we emit moment to moment, digital and otherwise, and the right of powerful players to incorporate that into models which will definitely be used against us. The social contract has never been sacrosanct, it's enforced through social consequences. These companies don't feel social consequences, individuals making these psychopathic decisions are socially rewarded by their peers and allies, and financially rewarded in turn. Money is a flow of power, not of value. Especially post Bretton-Woods.

ankit219 2y ago
That is the contentious part. These are not easy questions. People talk about data, but individual data is as useless as they come for many companies. Data is only useful in aggregate and that too after reaching a certain scale. Counter intuitively, individual data (w or w/o PII) is more likely to be used for nefarious purposes compared to aggregated data. Aggregated data can lead to better user experiences, better utilization of our time, and can deliver more value to us (while delivering personalized ads). No one should create a blanket rule which bans aggregation given how it can ban Google Maps and Google search and Google ads in the same breath if interpreted broadly. With generative AI, the paradigm has changed and it needs a rethink. That was my original point. We don't have a clear answer yet.

torginus 2y ago

I'd say your optimism is unfounded - copyright in the digital realm started out as a free for all, and turned into a sh*tshow, that kinda is still unresolved to this day. And these are issues that arose 20, 30 years ago. If AI follows the digital copyright model, what'll happen is that interest groups with true legal muscle behind them (music, movie industry, etc.) will enforce their interests with draconian laws, and everybody else will be left to fend for themselves.