3 ms·
> MP3 was not created by dumping music somewhere to get back an algorithm. This wasn't what I was trying to suggest, clearly I wasn't clear enough given the co
by Latty 2y ago
> MP3 was not created by dumping music somewhere to get back an algorithm.
This wasn't what I was trying to suggest, clearly I wasn't clear enough given the context, but my point was to give a very distant example where humans are using copyrighted works to test their algorithms as a starting point, as I later go on to say, I think the two cases are fundamentally different, but the point was to make the case that there are different types of "using copyrighted works to create tools", which is distinct from "learning".
> Why? Why can't they just pay. AI companies have the highest valuation and so have the most $$$ and yet they can't pay? This is the equivalent of the rich claiming they are poor and then stealing from the poor.
I don't think them paying solves the problem.
1) These are trained on such enormous amounts of data that is sourced unreliably, how are these companies going to negotiate with all of the rights holders?
2) How do you deal with the fact the original artists who previously sold rights to companies will now have their future work replaced in the market by these tools when they sold a specific work, not expecting that? Sure, the rights owners might make some money, but the artists end up getting nothing and suffering the impact of having their work devalued.
3) You then create a world where only giant megacorps who can afford to get the training rights can make models, they can then demand all work made with them (potentially necessary to compete in future markets) give them back the rights, creating a viscous cycle of rent-seeking where a few companies control the tools necessary to be a commercial artist.
Paying might, at best, help satisfy current rights holders, which is a fraction of the problems at hand, in my opinion. I think making models inherently public domain solves far more of them.
- re-thc 2y ago> 1) These are trained on such enormous amounts of data that is sourced unreliably, how are these companies going to negotiate with all of the rights holders? i.e. the business was impossible? Then don't do it. That's like saying I can't do the exam reliably sir, so I cheated and you should accept. > 2) How do you deal with the fact the original artists who previously sold rights to companies will now have their future work replaced Charge differently / appropriately. This has already been done, e.g. there are different prices / licenses for once-off individual use, vs business vs unlimited use vs SaaS etc. > 3) You then create a world where only giant megacorps who can afford to Isn't this currently the case? Who can afford the GPUs? What difference does that make? These AI companies are already getting sky high valuations with the excuse of cost... > I think making models inherently public domain solves far more of them. How is that even enforceable? Companies just don't have to even announce there is a new model or the model they used and life progresses.
- Latty 2y ago> i.e. the business was impossible? Then don't do it. That's like saying I can't do the exam reliably sir, so I cheated and you should accept. Sure, I think that's also a potential option, like I say we need to ask what the benefit to society is and if it is worth the cost. > Charge differently / appropriately. This has already been done, e.g. there are different prices / licenses for once-off individual use, vs business vs unlimited use vs SaaS etc. If we are just bundling it into copyright, you can't retroactively set that up, people have already given away copyright licenses, and their work will then be sold/used to train and they can't change that. > Isn't this currently the case? Who can afford the GPUs? What difference does that make? These AI companies are already getting sky high valuations with the excuse of cost... Right, but currently they get to own the models. If we forced the models to be public domain, anyone could run inference with them, inference hardware isn't cheap, but it's not anywhere near the barrier paying the rights for all the data to train a model is. > How is that even enforceable? Companies just don't have to even announce there is a new model or the model they used and life progresses. Patents require a legal framework and co-operation and enforcement. Yeah, enforcing it isn't trivial but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If you want to have a product relying on an ML model, you have to submit your models to some public repository, if you don't, then the law can force you. Of course a company can claim their product isn't using a model or whatever, or try and mislead, but if that's illegal, no company is watertight, a solid kickback to whistleblowers you pull from the hefty fine when it's found out, etc... This is off the top of my head, obviously you'd apply more thought to it if you were implementing it.
- re-thc 2y ago> we need to ask what the benefit to society is Business doesn't operate on the benefit of society. It's not a charity. > people have already given away copyright licenses, and their work will then be sold/used to train and they can't change that. They have? No they haven't. There are already ongoing law suits. > If we forced the models to be public domain How do you? Send the NSA and FBI to everyone's house? How do you know I have a model? > enforcing it isn't trivial but that doesn't mean it can't be done Just like stopping drugs? Good luck.