7 ms·

So, why not pay the price of each copyrighted work ingested by the model?

by stargrazer 2y ago

thisisnotauser 2y ago
I mean, China won't have to, so the AI race would still be over.
- noman-land 2y ago
  China also doesn't have to care about the will of its people, human rights, freedom of speech, and a bunch of other pesky things that get in the way of doing whatever the fuck you want to people for personal gain.
  - thisisnotauser 2y ago
    Seems like it'd be bad to let them win then.
    - hotep99 2y ago
      We can let them dominate us but feel smug and morally superior in the process.
  - latentcall 2y ago
    Neither does mine so we’re on equal footing!
- kadoban 2y ago
  So make the AI models public goods, developed by the government. Why should companies be getting rich on everyone else's work?
  - thisisnotauser 2y ago
    Well, I guess most copyright we're talking about here is IP owned by very wealthy corporations, to wit: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-intellectual-property-rules-help-the-rich https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-intellectual-pro... So I'm not sure that it would really change the status quo for a different group of already rich people to profit off of art created largely by the working poor and owned largely by another group of already rich people. I guess if you think the government can accomplish what you propose, sure. But seems like that's not going to happen. Except maybe in China, and it sounds like that might be even worse for everyone. Thus, it really seems like there's a solid point here that abandoning copyright to allow private investors to get rich stealing art from other rich people who really just stole it from poor people anyways is better than not doing that.
    - kadoban 2y ago
      > So I'm not sure that it would really change the status quo for a different group of already rich people to profit off of art created largely by the working poor and owned largely by another group of already rich people. I did not propose that any rich people profit off of it. It should be a public good. > I guess if you think the government can accomplish what you propose, sure. But seems like that's not going to happen. Except maybe in China, and it sounds like that might be even worse for everyone. Throw it at universities, fund it and organize it well. They can take it from where we are right now.
    - bediger4000 2y ago
      > I guess most copyright we're talking about here is IP owned by very wealthy corporations, They're mostly the entities that can afford to enforce their copyrights. Copyright is for the wealthy, unfortunately.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    What could possibly go wrong giving the same government that is currently deleting information from websites including references to the “Enola Gay” control over models?
    - kadoban 2y ago
      The US needs to fix its government anyway. If they cannot, nothing else matters.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        Don’t forget that the pearl clutching is on both sides. It was Tipper Gore that thought the world would come to an end because of rap music. Let’s just not give the government any more power in our lives than necessary.
        kadoban 2y ago
        The current regime is in a fascist power grab and you're both-sidsing some random-ass second lady from a generation ago? Yeah wonder why we can't have effective government. > Let’s just not give the government any more power in our lives than necessary. Let's stop giving corporations all of the power and get a government that actually works for us.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        It doesn’t matter. You should never trust the government with more power than absolutely necessary. Because eventually, the other side will do something you don’t like. This is the government people voted for. The government has a “monopoly on violence”. No corporation can force you to do anything, take away your freedom (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democracy) or your property (see civil forfeiture). I can much more easily avoid a corporation than the government.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- dmix 2y ago
  I don't think people realize how much money has been dumped into other Chinese AI models besides Deepseek, even American VCs like Sequoia are getting involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshot_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshot_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baichuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baichuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniMax_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniMax_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhipu_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhipu_AI
  - thisisnotauser 2y ago
    It kinda makes sense to spend your dollars where they can actually get used.
Dylan16807 2y ago
They do have to pay that. But if it's not fair use, they'd need to negotiate a custom license on top of that, for every single thing they use.
- danaris 2y ago
  Where do they have to pay that? Where have they paid for each artwork from DeviantArt, paheal, etc that they trained Stable Diffusion on? Where have they paid for each independent blog post that they trained ChatGPT on? Yes, they've made a few deals with specific companies that host a large amount of content. That's a far cry from paying a fair price for each copyrighted work they ingest. Nearly everything on the Internet is copyrighted, because of the way modern copyright works, and they have paid for nearly none of it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - avgd 2y ago
    Also, openai only started making deals (and mostly with news publishers) after the NYT lawsuit. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258952/new-york-times-openai-microsoft https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258952/new-york-times-... They didn't even consider doing this before. They still, as far as I know, haven't paid a dime for any book, or art beyond stock photography. Lawsuit is still ongoing, if openai loses it might spell doom for legal production and usage of LLMs as a whole. There isn't enough open, free data out there to make state of the art AI.
    - codedokode 2y ago
      > There isn't enough open, free data out there to make state of the art AI. But there are models trained on legal content (like Wikipedia or StackOverflow). Also, no human needs to read millions of pirated books to become intelligent.
      - avgd 2y ago

So, why not pay the price of each copyrighted work ingested by the model?

thisisnotauser 2y ago

I mean, China won't have to, so the AI race would still be over.

noman-land 2y ago
China also doesn't have to care about the will of its people, human rights, freedom of speech, and a bunch of other pesky things that get in the way of doing whatever the fuck you want to people for personal gain.
- thisisnotauser 2y ago
  Seems like it'd be bad to let them win then.
  - hotep99 2y ago
    We can let them dominate us but feel smug and morally superior in the process.
- latentcall 2y ago
  Neither does mine so we’re on equal footing!
kadoban 2y ago
So make the AI models public goods, developed by the government. Why should companies be getting rich on everyone else's work?
- thisisnotauser 2y ago
  Well, I guess most copyright we're talking about here is IP owned by very wealthy corporations, to wit: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-intellectual-property-rules-help-the-rich https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-intellectual-pro... So I'm not sure that it would really change the status quo for a different group of already rich people to profit off of art created largely by the working poor and owned largely by another group of already rich people. I guess if you think the government can accomplish what you propose, sure. But seems like that's not going to happen. Except maybe in China, and it sounds like that might be even worse for everyone. Thus, it really seems like there's a solid point here that abandoning copyright to allow private investors to get rich stealing art from other rich people who really just stole it from poor people anyways is better than not doing that.
  - kadoban 2y ago
    > So I'm not sure that it would really change the status quo for a different group of already rich people to profit off of art created largely by the working poor and owned largely by another group of already rich people. I did not propose that any rich people profit off of it. It should be a public good. > I guess if you think the government can accomplish what you propose, sure. But seems like that's not going to happen. Except maybe in China, and it sounds like that might be even worse for everyone. Throw it at universities, fund it and organize it well. They can take it from where we are right now.
  - bediger4000 2y ago
    > I guess most copyright we're talking about here is IP owned by very wealthy corporations, They're mostly the entities that can afford to enforce their copyrights. Copyright is for the wealthy, unfortunately.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  What could possibly go wrong giving the same government that is currently deleting information from websites including references to the “Enola Gay” control over models?
  - kadoban 2y ago
    The US needs to fix its government anyway. If they cannot, nothing else matters.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      Don’t forget that the pearl clutching is on both sides. It was Tipper Gore that thought the world would come to an end because of rap music. Let’s just not give the government any more power in our lives than necessary.
      - kadoban 2y ago
        The current regime is in a fascist power grab and you're both-sidsing some random-ass second lady from a generation ago? Yeah wonder why we can't have effective government. > Let’s just not give the government any more power in our lives than necessary. Let's stop giving corporations all of the power and get a government that actually works for us.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        It doesn’t matter. You should never trust the government with more power than absolutely necessary. Because eventually, the other side will do something you don’t like. This is the government people voted for. The government has a “monopoly on violence”. No corporation can force you to do anything, take away your freedom (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democracy) or your property (see civil forfeiture). I can much more easily avoid a corporation than the government.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
dmix 2y ago
I don't think people realize how much money has been dumped into other Chinese AI models besides Deepseek, even American VCs like Sequoia are getting involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshot_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshot_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baichuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baichuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniMax_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniMax_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhipu_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhipu_AI
- thisisnotauser 2y ago
  It kinda makes sense to spend your dollars where they can actually get used.

Dylan16807 2y ago

They do have to pay that. But if it's not fair use, they'd need to negotiate a custom license on top of that, for every single thing they use.

danaris 2y ago
Where do they have to pay that? Where have they paid for each artwork from DeviantArt, paheal, etc that they trained Stable Diffusion on? Where have they paid for each independent blog post that they trained ChatGPT on? Yes, they've made a few deals with specific companies that host a large amount of content. That's a far cry from paying a fair price for each copyrighted work they ingest. Nearly everything on the Internet is copyrighted, because of the way modern copyright works, and they have paid for nearly none of it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- avgd 2y ago
  Also, openai only started making deals (and mostly with news publishers) after the NYT lawsuit. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258952/new-york-times-openai-microsoft https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258952/new-york-times-... They didn't even consider doing this before. They still, as far as I know, haven't paid a dime for any book, or art beyond stock photography. Lawsuit is still ongoing, if openai loses it might spell doom for legal production and usage of LLMs as a whole. There isn't enough open, free data out there to make state of the art AI.
  - codedokode 2y ago
    > There isn't enough open, free data out there to make state of the art AI. But there are models trained on legal content (like Wikipedia or StackOverflow). Also, no human needs to read millions of pirated books to become intelligent.
    - avgd 2y ago