4 ms·

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 everyt

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.

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.