5 ms·

It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.) that is lobbying US states to go after OpenAI and other Ame

by dtquad 2y ago

It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.) that is lobbying US states to go after OpenAI and other American AI companies. It's the New York Times and various journalist and writers' unions that are leading the charge against American AI. American journalists and opinion piece writers want to kill American AI and let China and Russia have the global lead. Why? Have they taught about the long consequences of what they are doing?

btreecat 2y ago
I think content creators want to be compensated for their work that's being used for commercial purposes. I think you're framing it in a way that makes it seem like they don't want to be compensated for working, they just want to stop other people from starting a new industry, which doesn't seem like a good faith understanding of the situation.
- ivanmontillam 2y ago
  Business and tech idea: make it so that it's like Spotify for AI. Everytime an answer is drawn from "certain learned weights," make it so that the source of that knowledge is paid cents per volume.
  - affinepplan 2y ago
    yeah this sounds like it'll be reliably enforced for sure
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - InvidFlower 2y ago
    While that is cool in principal, I'm not sure how well it'd actually work in reality. First, there is the technical challenge. My understanding is the weights can have a lot of fluctuation, especially early on. How do we actually determine how much influence a given piece of content has on the final weights? Then if we get past that, my suspicion is that you could game the training. Like have as much of the process happen via public domain sources or pay-once licenses. That would cover a lot of the fundamental knowledge and processes. Then you could fine-tune on copyrighted data. That might actually make it easier to see how much influence on the final weights that content has, but is also would probably be a lot less influence. There's a big difference between a painting of an apple being the main contribution to the concept of "apple" in an image model, vs mention of that painting corresponding to a few weights that just reference a bunch of other concepts that were learned via open data.
    - ivanmontillam 2y ago
      > First, there is the technical challenge. My understanding is the weights can have a lot of fluctuation, especially early on. How do we actually determine how much influence a given piece of content has on the final weights? Well, Bing AI already knows where it drew the information from and cites sources; so it would be a matter of making the deal. How to enforce it? that's the main question I reckon. > Then if we get past that, my suspicion is that you could game the training. Like have as much of the process happen via public domain sources or pay-once licenses. I agree.
  - esafak 2y ago
    Running it is probably costly, but there are papers on "influence analysis": Training data influence analysis and estimation: a survey (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10994-023-06495-7.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10994-023-064...) It would be easier to negotiate a fixed cost on using a particular datum per training of a model.
kmeisthax 2y ago
The market for creative works breaks down as follows. You have pay-in-advance arrangements such as patronage, commissioning, and so on. Those have been around forever. And then you have pay-if-you-want-it arrangements which only make economic sense because we have laws that grant monopolies to the creators of the work over the market for copies of that work. The first arrangement is very clearly a labor arrangement; but the second one is a deliberate attempt to force artists to act like capitalists. More importantly, because art is now acting like capital, it provides an obvious economic instinct to centralize[0]. So you get industrialized artistic production under the banner of publishing companies, whose business model is to buy out the copyright to new creative works and then exploit them. What AI art does is transfer money from the labor side of art to the capital side of art. The MAFIAA[1] wants AI art to exist because it means they can stop paying artists but still make royalties off selling licenses to the AI companies. This increases their profit margins. Meanwhile, the journalists can't sell you old news; they need to spend lots of time and money gathering it every day. That business model only works in a world where writers are scarce, not just the writing itself being artificially scarce. [0] We can see this with cryptocurrency, which is laughably centralized despite being a deliberate attempt to decentralize money. [1] Music and Film Industry Association of America, a hypothetical merger of the RIAA and MPAA from a satirical news article
NoOn3 2y ago
With these proposed rules, American AI may be able to surpass the AI of China and Russia, but will American creators and ordinary people be happy with this, because all the money will end up in the pockets of Sam Altman and other billionaires, and ordinary creators will be left with nothing?
pessimizer 2y ago
> It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.) Is it interesting? They hate the people who produce their product and are desperate to replace them with machines. Note that their unions also hate AI, and it was a central reason for for the Writer's Guild SAG-AFTRA strike, since you're bringing up the NYT unions. The NYT also stands to benefit not an iota from AI. It probably causes a burden because they have to make sure that their awful long-in-the-tooth editorial columnists aren't turning in LLM slop. It is entirely a negative for people who generate high quality content the hard way.

by dtquad 2y ago

btreecat 2y ago

I think content creators want to be compensated for their work that's being used for commercial purposes. I think you're framing it in a way that makes it seem like they don't want to be compensated for working, they just want to stop other people from starting a new industry, which doesn't seem like a good faith understanding of the situation.

ivanmontillam 2y ago
Business and tech idea: make it so that it's like Spotify for AI. Everytime an answer is drawn from "certain learned weights," make it so that the source of that knowledge is paid cents per volume.
- affinepplan 2y ago
  yeah this sounds like it'll be reliably enforced for sure
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- InvidFlower 2y ago
  While that is cool in principal, I'm not sure how well it'd actually work in reality. First, there is the technical challenge. My understanding is the weights can have a lot of fluctuation, especially early on. How do we actually determine how much influence a given piece of content has on the final weights? Then if we get past that, my suspicion is that you could game the training. Like have as much of the process happen via public domain sources or pay-once licenses. That would cover a lot of the fundamental knowledge and processes. Then you could fine-tune on copyrighted data. That might actually make it easier to see how much influence on the final weights that content has, but is also would probably be a lot less influence. There's a big difference between a painting of an apple being the main contribution to the concept of "apple" in an image model, vs mention of that painting corresponding to a few weights that just reference a bunch of other concepts that were learned via open data.
  - ivanmontillam 2y ago
    > First, there is the technical challenge. My understanding is the weights can have a lot of fluctuation, especially early on. How do we actually determine how much influence a given piece of content has on the final weights? Well, Bing AI already knows where it drew the information from and cites sources; so it would be a matter of making the deal. How to enforce it? that's the main question I reckon. > Then if we get past that, my suspicion is that you could game the training. Like have as much of the process happen via public domain sources or pay-once licenses. I agree.
- esafak 2y ago
  Running it is probably costly, but there are papers on "influence analysis": Training data influence analysis and estimation: a survey (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10994-023-06495-7.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10994-023-064...) It would be easier to negotiate a fixed cost on using a particular datum per training of a model.

kmeisthax 2y ago

The market for creative works breaks down as follows. You have pay-in-advance arrangements such as patronage, commissioning, and so on. Those have been around forever. And then you have pay-if-you-want-it arrangements which only make economic sense because we have laws that grant monopolies to the creators of the work over the market for copies of that work. The first arrangement is very clearly a labor arrangement; but the second one is a deliberate attempt to force artists to act like capitalists. More importantly, because art is now acting like capital, it provides an obvious economic instinct to centralize[0]. So you get industrialized artistic production under the banner of publishing companies, whose business model is to buy out the copyright to new creative works and then exploit them. What AI art does is transfer money from the labor side of art to the capital side of art. The MAFIAA[1] wants AI art to exist because it means they can stop paying artists but still make royalties off selling licenses to the AI companies. This increases their profit margins. Meanwhile, the journalists can't sell you old news; they need to spend lots of time and money gathering it every day. That business model only works in a world where writers are scarce, not just the writing itself being artificially scarce. [0] We can see this with cryptocurrency, which is laughably centralized despite being a deliberate attempt to decentralize money. [1] Music and Film Industry Association of America, a hypothetical merger of the RIAA and MPAA from a satirical news article

NoOn3 2y ago

With these proposed rules, American AI may be able to surpass the AI of China and Russia, but will American creators and ordinary people be happy with this, because all the money will end up in the pockets of Sam Altman and other billionaires, and ordinary creators will be left with nothing?

pessimizer 2y ago

> It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.) Is it interesting? They hate the people who produce their product and are desperate to replace them with machines. Note that their unions also hate AI, and it was a central reason for for the Writer's Guild SAG-AFTRA strike, since you're bringing up the NYT unions. The NYT also stands to benefit not an iota from AI. It probably causes a burden because they have to make sure that their awful long-in-the-tooth editorial columnists aren't turning in LLM slop. It is entirely a negative for people who generate high quality content the hard way.