4 ms·

This misunderstanding is getting out of hand. That's not what he was saying at all! He was talking about sites that say things like "you're not allowed to even

This misunderstanding is getting out of hand. That's not what he was saying at all! He was talking about sites that say things like "you're not allowed to even scrape our content unless it's for search engine indexing". Without any such restriction, they are giving implied permission to download/scrape their content. That doesn't mean you have the right to redistribute it though, or that it's free, and that's not what he said. "anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it" are his words. Those "with"s are important!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
moritzwarhier 2y ago
MS "reproducing with" all available content? No thanks. So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? That behavior is a lot more aggressive and unethical than what Google does on its news aggregator (although that has become unusable for me on mobile since the latest redesign, whatever). sure, Google would probably like to anonymize all "content creators" too, and drive the value of arts and information to zero. I don't buy the constant equation of linking to external sources (search engine, link aggregator) with the automated mass-production of uncredited copycat content. That's what I consider an important difference. It feels weird when link aggregators link to MS Start, which itself seems to be an AI text generator paraphrasing other's content. Not sure because I tend to leave early. Guess they have some licensed content as well. When people don't value content, it's cynical to complain about the decline of journalism.
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  > So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? Existing copyright law already covers that. It's the same rules.
  - moritzwarhier 2y ago
    I was aware of that when commenting, I was answering to this part of the original comment, that claimed an important nuance in this statement: > "anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it" are his words. Those "with"s are important! So I was a very strong anti-DRM proposant when younger and I basically still am. Information is inherently free, yes. And every creation that is understandable to others must be derivative of other works. But no, I still think that existing copyright law does not cover AI slop generated from copyrighted content. It covers "remixing" and fair use to a degree (or, more precisely, there is legislative precedence about many nuances of copyright). But copyright law deals with humans. It is not designed to cover automatically generated copycat "work" at scale. Look at actual cases about derivative works and the line being drawn: no way this covers the situation with LLMs, it is not remotely practical to have a complicated court case for each piece of AI slop generated. To the contrary, LLMs are ideal tools to obfuscate the actual source of any original piece if information. Yes, the existing copyright of the next HBO series won't be affected. But ad an indie author or musician, it could become even harder to achieve any kind of meaningful revenue. I think this tends to degrade all domains of art to a pastime for people without any material needs. Not that this is principally new, but the kind of automation that AI allows has the potential to ramp this up to eleven.
    - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
      To help me understand you, imagine if AI were as good as it is but somehow not trained on anyone else's material without their explicit permission. Would everything be OK then? It's still undermining an indie author or musician's ability to earn money from their own work. That's kind of what other human creators collectively are. They're competition and they are the reason indie artists have trouble making money. There's too much supply. But that's a good thing for people in general! If AI acted like that, it would be even better, and perhaps artist would no longer be a job but more like a hobby - like gardening or making model railways.
      - moritzwarhier 2y ago
        The scenario I had in mind is simple: - publish content (music, book, blog post, whatever). - content gets automatically plagiarized, so that it's not an exact duplicate anymore - now you'll have to sue and win in court to claim your rights to the content So the same scenario as with human plagiarizing, but at a scale that makes it harder for authors to claim their copyright or argue against "fair use". > There's too much supply. But that's a good thing for people in general No, I don't want to listened AI-generated slop "in the style of" my favorite artists. Music is a great example. For small excerpts and some background listening, I might not notice at first. But after a while, I do. Same with text: I have not ever read a single piece of original content worth reading that was "created by AI", do you? The "supply" here is not getting bigger because of AI. It is diluted. What do you prefer to read, a StackOverflow answer from 2012 with some edits afterwards, or a translated sunmarization with subtle errors and no attribution? To address your question: > To help me understand you, imagine if AI were as good as it is but somehow not trained on anyone else's material without their explicit permission. Would everything be OK then? It's still undermining an indie author or musician's ability to earn money from their own work. I have not yet heard any AI output that was interesting music on its own to me. Interesting sounds and loops maybe, compositions: not so much. I find AI as a tool for creators more interesting. What I am worried about is that this won't happen. That it will only be used to plagiarize at scale, and replace creativity with a mixture of randomness and interpolation of already present ideas, optimized for commercial exploitation. In this scenario, everything that you put on the internet will be merged into mass-produced culture products by large companies, before you even have any chance to try and claim any kind of copyright. In the short term, it's unimportant then if your work would be used as input/context or training data. > If AI acted like that, it would be even better, and perhaps artist would no longer be a job but more like a hobby - like gardening or making model railways. I used to argue against copyright in a similar way. Money is a bad motive anyway, etc But this is not practical. Cultural progress and interesting works are rarely done as a leisure activity of people who have to work a regular job full-time.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

moritzwarhier 2y ago

MS "reproducing with" all available content? No thanks. So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? That behavior is a lot more aggressive and unethical than what Google does on its news aggregator (although that has become unusable for me on mobile since the latest redesign, whatever). sure, Google would probably like to anonymize all "content creators" too, and drive the value of arts and information to zero. I don't buy the constant equation of linking to external sources (search engine, link aggregator) with the automated mass-production of uncredited copycat content. That's what I consider an important difference. It feels weird when link aggregators link to MS Start, which itself seems to be an AI text generator paraphrasing other's content. Not sure because I tend to leave early. Guess they have some licensed content as well. When people don't value content, it's cynical to complain about the decline of journalism.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago
> So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? Existing copyright law already covers that. It's the same rules.
- moritzwarhier 2y ago
  I was aware of that when commenting, I was answering to this part of the original comment, that claimed an important nuance in this statement: > "anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it" are his words. Those "with"s are important! So I was a very strong anti-DRM proposant when younger and I basically still am. Information is inherently free, yes. And every creation that is understandable to others must be derivative of other works. But no, I still think that existing copyright law does not cover AI slop generated from copyrighted content. It covers "remixing" and fair use to a degree (or, more precisely, there is legislative precedence about many nuances of copyright). But copyright law deals with humans. It is not designed to cover automatically generated copycat "work" at scale. Look at actual cases about derivative works and the line being drawn: no way this covers the situation with LLMs, it is not remotely practical to have a complicated court case for each piece of AI slop generated. To the contrary, LLMs are ideal tools to obfuscate the actual source of any original piece if information. Yes, the existing copyright of the next HBO series won't be affected. But ad an indie author or musician, it could become even harder to achieve any kind of meaningful revenue. I think this tends to degrade all domains of art to a pastime for people without any material needs. Not that this is principally new, but the kind of automation that AI allows has the potential to ramp this up to eleven.
  - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
    To help me understand you, imagine if AI were as good as it is but somehow not trained on anyone else's material without their explicit permission. Would everything be OK then? It's still undermining an indie author or musician's ability to earn money from their own work. That's kind of what other human creators collectively are. They're competition and they are the reason indie artists have trouble making money. There's too much supply. But that's a good thing for people in general! If AI acted like that, it would be even better, and perhaps artist would no longer be a job but more like a hobby - like gardening or making model railways.
    - moritzwarhier 2y ago
      The scenario I had in mind is simple: - publish content (music, book, blog post, whatever). - content gets automatically plagiarized, so that it's not an exact duplicate anymore - now you'll have to sue and win in court to claim your rights to the content So the same scenario as with human plagiarizing, but at a scale that makes it harder for authors to claim their copyright or argue against "fair use". > There's too much supply. But that's a good thing for people in general No, I don't want to listened AI-generated slop "in the style of" my favorite artists. Music is a great example. For small excerpts and some background listening, I might not notice at first. But after a while, I do. Same with text: I have not ever read a single piece of original content worth reading that was "created by AI", do you? The "supply" here is not getting bigger because of AI. It is diluted. What do you prefer to read, a StackOverflow answer from 2012 with some edits afterwards, or a translated sunmarization with subtle errors and no attribution? To address your question: > To help me understand you, imagine if AI were as good as it is but somehow not trained on anyone else's material without their explicit permission. Would everything be OK then? It's still undermining an indie author or musician's ability to earn money from their own work. I have not yet heard any AI output that was interesting music on its own to me. Interesting sounds and loops maybe, compositions: not so much. I find AI as a tool for creators more interesting. What I am worried about is that this won't happen. That it will only be used to plagiarize at scale, and replace creativity with a mixture of randomness and interpolation of already present ideas, optimized for commercial exploitation. In this scenario, everything that you put on the internet will be merged into mass-produced culture products by large companies, before you even have any chance to try and claim any kind of copyright. In the short term, it's unimportant then if your work would be used as input/context or training data. > If AI acted like that, it would be even better, and perhaps artist would no longer be a job but more like a hobby - like gardening or making model railways. I used to argue against copyright in a similar way. Money is a bad motive anyway, etc But this is not practical. Cultural progress and interesting works are rarely done as a leisure activity of people who have to work a regular job full-time.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]