6 ms·

> That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied Until now, this has been a

by trimbo 2y ago

> That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied Until now, this has been an acceptable tradeoff because there's some friction to theft. Directly cloning the work is easy, but that also means an artist can sue or DMCA. It also means the original artist's work can go more viral, which, despite the short-term downsides, can help their popularity long term. The important difference is that imitating an artist's style with new work used to take significant time (hours or days). With an LLM, it takes milliseconds, and that model will be able to churn out the likes of your work millions of times per day, forever. That's the difference, and why the dilemma is new. > Ultimately "AI did it" should never be allowed to be used an as an excuse With the exception of an LLM directly plagiarizing, the only way to prove it didn't is by not allowing it to train on something. LLMs are the sum of everything. We could say the same about humans, sure, we are a model trained on everything we've ever seen too. But humans aren't machines who can recreate stuff in the blink of an eye, with nearly perfect recall, at millions of qps.

autoexec 2y ago
> With an LLM, it takes milliseconds, and that model will be able to churning out the likes of your work millions of times per day, forever. AI does cause a lot of problems in terms of scale. The good news is that if AI churns out millions of copies of your copyrighted works you're entitled to compensation for each and every copy. In addition to pushing out copies of copyrighted material, AI is also capable of writing up DMCA notices and legal paperwork. > With the exception of an LLM directly plagiarizing, the only way to prove it didn't is by not allowing it to train on something. LLMs copy everything and nothing at the same time. An AI's output should be held to the exact same standard as anyone else's output. If it's close enough to someone else's copyrighted work to be considered infringing then the company using that AI should be liable for copyright infringement the same way they would be if AI had never been involved. AI's ability to produce a large number of infringing works very quickly might even be what causes companies to be more careful about how they use it. Breaking the law at speeds approaching the speed of light isn't a good business model.
panarky 2y ago
"That's just how the internet works" is nonsensical when AI is changing how the internet works. Just because the tradeoffs of sharing on the internet used to work before AI, doesn't mean those tradeoffs continue to be workable after AI. It's like having drones follow everyone around and publish realtime telephoto video of them because they have "no expectation of privacy" in public places. Maybe before surveillance tech existed, there was no expectation of privacy in public places, but now that surveillance tech exists, people naturally expect that high-res video of their every move won't be collected, archived and published even if they are in public.
- jofla_net 2y ago
  Yup, this is just a new-age tragedy of the commons. As soon as armies of sheep come to graze, or consume your content, the honeymoon's over.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > Maybe before surveillance tech existed, there was no expectation of privacy in public places, but now that surveillance tech exists, people naturally expect that high-res video of their every move won't be collected, archived and published even if they are in public. currently, that'd be an unrealistic expectation. I'd agree that it would be nice if that wasn't the case but laws need to catch up with technology. Right now, AI doesn't change things too much since a company who publishes something that violates copyright law is still breaking the law. It shouldn't matter if an AI was used to create the infringing copy or not. I'm all for new laws giving extra rights to people on top of what we already have if needed, but generally copyright law is already far too oppressive so I'd need to consider a specific proposed law and its impacts.
  - 3np 2y ago
    The topic of expectations reminds me of this article https://spectrum.ieee.org/online-privacy https://spectrum.ieee.org/online-privacy
    - autoexec 2y ago
skeledrew 2y ago
Outside of competing profit motives, there is no dilemma. It's that underlying motive, and it's root, that will have to undergo a drastic change. The Pandora that AI is is already out of the box and there's no putting it back in; only dealing with the consequences.

by trimbo 2y ago

autoexec 2y ago

> With an LLM, it takes milliseconds, and that model will be able to churning out the likes of your work millions of times per day, forever. AI does cause a lot of problems in terms of scale. The good news is that if AI churns out millions of copies of your copyrighted works you're entitled to compensation for each and every copy. In addition to pushing out copies of copyrighted material, AI is also capable of writing up DMCA notices and legal paperwork. > With the exception of an LLM directly plagiarizing, the only way to prove it didn't is by not allowing it to train on something. LLMs copy everything and nothing at the same time. An AI's output should be held to the exact same standard as anyone else's output. If it's close enough to someone else's copyrighted work to be considered infringing then the company using that AI should be liable for copyright infringement the same way they would be if AI had never been involved. AI's ability to produce a large number of infringing works very quickly might even be what causes companies to be more careful about how they use it. Breaking the law at speeds approaching the speed of light isn't a good business model.

panarky 2y ago

"That's just how the internet works" is nonsensical when AI is changing how the internet works. Just because the tradeoffs of sharing on the internet used to work before AI, doesn't mean those tradeoffs continue to be workable after AI. It's like having drones follow everyone around and publish realtime telephoto video of them because they have "no expectation of privacy" in public places. Maybe before surveillance tech existed, there was no expectation of privacy in public places, but now that surveillance tech exists, people naturally expect that high-res video of their every move won't be collected, archived and published even if they are in public.

jofla_net 2y ago
Yup, this is just a new-age tragedy of the commons. As soon as armies of sheep come to graze, or consume your content, the honeymoon's over.
autoexec 2y ago
> Maybe before surveillance tech existed, there was no expectation of privacy in public places, but now that surveillance tech exists, people naturally expect that high-res video of their every move won't be collected, archived and published even if they are in public. currently, that'd be an unrealistic expectation. I'd agree that it would be nice if that wasn't the case but laws need to catch up with technology. Right now, AI doesn't change things too much since a company who publishes something that violates copyright law is still breaking the law. It shouldn't matter if an AI was used to create the infringing copy or not. I'm all for new laws giving extra rights to people on top of what we already have if needed, but generally copyright law is already far too oppressive so I'd need to consider a specific proposed law and its impacts.
- 3np 2y ago
  The topic of expectations reminds me of this article https://spectrum.ieee.org/online-privacy https://spectrum.ieee.org/online-privacy
  - autoexec 2y ago

skeledrew 2y ago

Outside of competing profit motives, there is no dilemma. It's that underlying motive, and it's root, that will have to undergo a drastic change. The Pandora that AI is is already out of the box and there's no putting it back in; only dealing with the consequences.