5 ms·

I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there i

by ch4s3 2y ago

I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can facilitate some sort of economic remuneration for people who write and create visual art while not giving up the game to Chinese companies. This seems to be a thorny dilemma.

phh 2y ago
Have you got any substance to that? So far the only copyright violation I've seen in the LLM world is Meta. (I'm not pretending they are alone though, and yes I expect Chinese companies to do that as well)
gjsman-1000 2y ago
Welcome to the internet; where the only way to prevent it (considering 40% of internet traffic is automated) is to use DRM, with accessibility tools provided by client-side AI; or to create national internets with strong firewalls only allowing access to countries we have treaties with. That’s the future at this rate, and it sucks. (The status quo also sucks.)
parliament32 2y ago
I'm pretty sure you can't, despite what IP holders would like you to believe. Like the last 50 years of piracy have taught us, it's effectively impossible (and probably immoral) to try to charge for copying something that's "free" to copy. It might make more sense to update copyright laws to match reality. For a music artist, for example, pennies from Spotify mean nothing -- the majority of their revenue comes from concerts/events, merchandise, and commercial licensing of their work.
borgdefenser 2y ago
As a digital artist myself, it is quite simple. You have to sell physical objects. The art has to be printed out and that is the art. Anyone can get an image of Salvator Mundi for free too. That is not the art, that is an image. The art is the physical object that is the painting Salvator Mundi. It is no different than traditional art really, just at a different scale. You can buy really nice Picasso knock offs on ebay right now. Picasso himself could have made 10 copies of the Weeping Woman to sell without that much effort either. The "real" Weeping Woman is the physical painting that Picasso did not make a copy of. The others are just knock off images. But the main problem remains. Selling art is really hard. AI art is already completely passé anyway. If anything the technology is regressing visually. Music was in a several decades long bull market in physical media sales that crashed and burned. Now we have gone back to the pre-music media bubble days but with much better distribution and marketing channels. Not a lot of people making a living playing ragtime piano or hoofers making a living tap dancing either. The real amusing thing to me is you never hear scultpure artist complain that they are in the training data sets. Probably because they know it is literally just free advertising for their real art.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  I'm with you 100%. A lot of people who wrote books didn't realize they were selling decorated paper, or who recorded music didn't realize they were selling wax discs and magnetic tape. With digital publishing, they were actually obsoleted. Like you, I don't think there's good news there, though. As an e.g. writer, you have to convert to selling ideas. The way you sell an idea is that you give it away, and if hearing it makes people like you they will give you arbitrary support. For a writer at least what that means is that only original, interesting work that stands out will be valuable, and it will not be valuable to the extent that it is good, but to the extent that it appeals to an audience. You might as well be a tap dancer. And if you aren't original, you'll never stand out amongst the AI slop, which will get better and better (and nicer and more pleasant to read and more useful and all that good shit that technology does.) I don't know if that's a bad thing. We have gone from an excess of uninteresting expression in the world to an overwhelming amount of "me too" and worthless repetition filling every crevice. I've probably published 3K words on the internet today. The number before the internet would be zero; but even back then the bookstores were filled with crap. The market for crap has been taken by AI. And as it gets better, as the crap sea level rises, it will eventually be over most content creators' heads. The only future for an expression market is parasocial. You're going to have to make people like you, and take care of you because they think of you as family. It's no wonder that entertainment is merging into politics.
- z3c0 2y ago
  I'm in agreement, and being an active artist in an art-centric city, I find myself having to explain this to other artists more than I'd like. Physical art is of measurable value, digital art simply is not. Claiming rights over an image of ones art is like claiming to own ones shadow.
avgd 2y ago
> Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright It is increasingly tiresome to see this clearly racist bias at work when every US company doing AI has been acting the same way. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/meta-staff-torrented-nearly-82tb-of-pirated-books-for-ai-training-court-records-reveal-copyright-violations https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell... https://piracymonitor.org/chat-gpt-trained-using-pirated-e-books/ https://piracymonitor.org/chat-gpt-trained-using-pirated-e-b...
- nemo44x 2y ago
  Why is it racist? Nationalist? Sure. But not racist.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  Why do you call this racist?
- ch4s3 2y ago
  I am certainly NOT expressing racial animus and take offense at the suggestion. My point is that a near peer competitive nation that has party political officers embedded into tech companies is the largest rival to domestic companies. I for one would prefer to live in a world where the winning "AI" companies are based in democracies and not in autocracies.
redox99 2y ago
None of the AI companies care about copyright lol. They just went from openly admitting the use of Books3, to being secretive about their dataset.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms because the US AI companies flatly ignored US copyright and IP laws/norms in creating their models to begin with

by ch4s3 2y ago

phh 2y ago

Have you got any substance to that? So far the only copyright violation I've seen in the LLM world is Meta. (I'm not pretending they are alone though, and yes I expect Chinese companies to do that as well)

gjsman-1000 2y ago

Welcome to the internet; where the only way to prevent it (considering 40% of internet traffic is automated) is to use DRM, with accessibility tools provided by client-side AI; or to create national internets with strong firewalls only allowing access to countries we have treaties with. That’s the future at this rate, and it sucks. (The status quo also sucks.)

parliament32 2y ago

I'm pretty sure you can't, despite what IP holders would like you to believe. Like the last 50 years of piracy have taught us, it's effectively impossible (and probably immoral) to try to charge for copying something that's "free" to copy. It might make more sense to update copyright laws to match reality. For a music artist, for example, pennies from Spotify mean nothing -- the majority of their revenue comes from concerts/events, merchandise, and commercial licensing of their work.

borgdefenser 2y ago

As a digital artist myself, it is quite simple. You have to sell physical objects. The art has to be printed out and that is the art. Anyone can get an image of Salvator Mundi for free too. That is not the art, that is an image. The art is the physical object that is the painting Salvator Mundi. It is no different than traditional art really, just at a different scale. You can buy really nice Picasso knock offs on ebay right now. Picasso himself could have made 10 copies of the Weeping Woman to sell without that much effort either. The "real" Weeping Woman is the physical painting that Picasso did not make a copy of. The others are just knock off images. But the main problem remains. Selling art is really hard. AI art is already completely passé anyway. If anything the technology is regressing visually. Music was in a several decades long bull market in physical media sales that crashed and burned. Now we have gone back to the pre-music media bubble days but with much better distribution and marketing channels. Not a lot of people making a living playing ragtime piano or hoofers making a living tap dancing either. The real amusing thing to me is you never hear scultpure artist complain that they are in the training data sets. Probably because they know it is literally just free advertising for their real art.

pessimizer 2y ago
I'm with you 100%. A lot of people who wrote books didn't realize they were selling decorated paper, or who recorded music didn't realize they were selling wax discs and magnetic tape. With digital publishing, they were actually obsoleted. Like you, I don't think there's good news there, though. As an e.g. writer, you have to convert to selling ideas. The way you sell an idea is that you give it away, and if hearing it makes people like you they will give you arbitrary support. For a writer at least what that means is that only original, interesting work that stands out will be valuable, and it will not be valuable to the extent that it is good, but to the extent that it appeals to an audience. You might as well be a tap dancer. And if you aren't original, you'll never stand out amongst the AI slop, which will get better and better (and nicer and more pleasant to read and more useful and all that good shit that technology does.) I don't know if that's a bad thing. We have gone from an excess of uninteresting expression in the world to an overwhelming amount of "me too" and worthless repetition filling every crevice. I've probably published 3K words on the internet today. The number before the internet would be zero; but even back then the bookstores were filled with crap. The market for crap has been taken by AI. And as it gets better, as the crap sea level rises, it will eventually be over most content creators' heads. The only future for an expression market is parasocial. You're going to have to make people like you, and take care of you because they think of you as family. It's no wonder that entertainment is merging into politics.
z3c0 2y ago
I'm in agreement, and being an active artist in an art-centric city, I find myself having to explain this to other artists more than I'd like. Physical art is of measurable value, digital art simply is not. Claiming rights over an image of ones art is like claiming to own ones shadow.

avgd 2y ago

> Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright It is increasingly tiresome to see this clearly racist bias at work when every US company doing AI has been acting the same way. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/meta-staff-torrented-nearly-82tb-of-pirated-books-for-ai-training-court-records-reveal-copyright-violations https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell... https://piracymonitor.org/chat-gpt-trained-using-pirated-e-books/ https://piracymonitor.org/chat-gpt-trained-using-pirated-e-b...

nemo44x 2y ago
Why is it racist? Nationalist? Sure. But not racist.
nonethewiser 2y ago
Why do you call this racist?
ch4s3 2y ago
I am certainly NOT expressing racial animus and take offense at the suggestion. My point is that a near peer competitive nation that has party political officers embedded into tech companies is the largest rival to domestic companies. I for one would prefer to live in a world where the winning "AI" companies are based in democracies and not in autocracies.

redox99 2y ago

None of the AI companies care about copyright lol. They just went from openly admitting the use of Books3, to being secretive about their dataset.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms because the US AI companies flatly ignored US copyright and IP laws/norms in creating their models to begin with