3 ms·

Hmm? Creating new models is clearly adding wealth to the world, and it wouldn't terribly surprise me if a lot of source material (e.g. scanned books or recorded

Hmm? Creating new models is clearly adding wealth to the world, and it wouldn't terribly surprise me if a lot of source material (e.g. scanned books or recorded music) is older than the people working on models. The history of copyright is basically a perfect example of rent-seeking.

Retric 1y ago
Creating new models doesn’t require taking content without any compensation. That’s the basic flaw in any argument around necessity.
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  No, but society has no reason to grant monopolies on 50 year old publications (e.g. textbooks or news articles written or songs recorded prior to 1975), and the changes that were made to copyright law to extend it into multiple generations were actual rent-seeking. i.e. manipulating public policy to transfer wealth from others to you rather than creating wealth. Going with the original 28 year compromise from a time when publishing was much more expensive, anything prior to 1997 would be free for anyone to use for any purpose with no expectation of compensation. We'd all be far richer culturally if we had this base to freely build upon instead of having the last 100 years stolen. Likewise much of the most important information to want to train on (research literature) was just straight up stolen from the public that paid for its creation already. By contrast, the models being created from these works are obviously useful to people today. They are clearly a form of new wealth generation. The open-weights models are even an equitable way of doing so, and are competitive with the top proprietary models. Saying the model creators need to pay the people monopolizing generations-old work is the rent-seeking behavior.
  - Retric 1y ago
    It’s far more recent works that AI companies care about. They can’t copy 50 year old python, JavaScript, etc code because it simply doesn’t exist. There’s some 50 year old C code, but it’s no longer idiomatic and so it goes. Utility of older works drop off as science marches on and culture changes. The real secret of long copyright terms is they just don’t matter much. Steamboat Willy entered the public domain and for all practical purposes nothing changed. Chip 20 years off of current copyright terms and it starts to matter more, but still isn’t particularly important. Sure drop it down to say 5 years and that’s meaningful but now it’s much harder to be an author which means fewer books worth reading.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      I still don't really get how compensation is supposed to work just based on the math. Models are trained on billions of works and have a lifetime of around a year; AI companies (e.g. Anthropic) have revenue in the low billions of dollars a year. Even if you took all of that -- leave nothing for salaries, hardware, utilities, to say nothing of profit -- and applied it to the works in the training data, it would be approximately $1 each. What is that good for? It would have a massive administrative cost and the authors would still get effectively nothing.
      - Retric 1y ago
        I think you’re overestimating the number of authors, and forgetting there’s several AI companies. A revenue sharing agreement with 10% going to creators isn’t unrealistic. Google’s revenue was 300 billion with 100 billion in profits last year, the AI industry may never reach that size but 1$/person on the planet is only 8 billion dollars, drop that to 70% of people are online so your down to 5.6 billion. That’s assuming you’re counting books and individual Facebook posts in any language equally. More realistically there’s only 12k professional journalists in the US but they create a disproportionate amount of value for AI companies.
        AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        > Google’s revenue was 300 billion with 100 billion in profits last year, the AI industry may never reach that size but 1$/person on the planet is only 8 billion dollars, drop that to 70% of people are online so your down to 5.6 billion. Google is a huge conglomerate and a poor choice for making estimates because the bulk of their revenue comes from "advertising" with no obvious way to distinguish what proportion of that ad revenue is attributable to AI, e.g. what proportion of search ad revenue is attributable to being the same company that runs the ad network, and to being the default search in Android, iOS and Chrome? Nowhere near all of it or even most of it is from AI. "Counting books and individual Facebook posts in any language equally" is kind of the issue. The links from the AI summary things are disproportionately not to the New York Times, they're more often to Reddit and YouTube and community forums on the site of the company whose product you're asking about and Stack Overflow and Wikipedia and random personal blogs and so on. Whereas you might have written an entire book, and that book is very useful and valuable to human readers who want to know about its subject matter, but unless that subject matter is something the general population frequently wants to know about, its value in this context is less than some random Facebook post that provides the answer to a question a lot of people have. And then the only way anybody is getting a significant amount of money is if it's plundering the little guy. Large incumbent media companies with lawyers get a disproportionate take because they're usurping the share of YouTube creators and Substack authors and forum posters who provided more in aggregate value but get squat. And I don't see any legitimacy in having it be Comcast and the Murdoch family who take the little guy's share at the cost of significant overhead and making it harder for smaller AI companies to compete with the bigger ones.
- otterley 1y ago
  That’s fine, but if you don’t want content taken without compensation, don’t make it available for free on the Internet. You can’t have it both ways, where it’s free to individuals to read but not for machines to do it. That’s just practically impossible.

Retric 1y ago

Creating new models doesn’t require taking content without any compensation. That’s the basic flaw in any argument around necessity.

ndriscoll 1y ago
No, but society has no reason to grant monopolies on 50 year old publications (e.g. textbooks or news articles written or songs recorded prior to 1975), and the changes that were made to copyright law to extend it into multiple generations were actual rent-seeking. i.e. manipulating public policy to transfer wealth from others to you rather than creating wealth. Going with the original 28 year compromise from a time when publishing was much more expensive, anything prior to 1997 would be free for anyone to use for any purpose with no expectation of compensation. We'd all be far richer culturally if we had this base to freely build upon instead of having the last 100 years stolen. Likewise much of the most important information to want to train on (research literature) was just straight up stolen from the public that paid for its creation already. By contrast, the models being created from these works are obviously useful to people today. They are clearly a form of new wealth generation. The open-weights models are even an equitable way of doing so, and are competitive with the top proprietary models. Saying the model creators need to pay the people monopolizing generations-old work is the rent-seeking behavior.
- Retric 1y ago
  It’s far more recent works that AI companies care about. They can’t copy 50 year old python, JavaScript, etc code because it simply doesn’t exist. There’s some 50 year old C code, but it’s no longer idiomatic and so it goes. Utility of older works drop off as science marches on and culture changes. The real secret of long copyright terms is they just don’t matter much. Steamboat Willy entered the public domain and for all practical purposes nothing changed. Chip 20 years off of current copyright terms and it starts to matter more, but still isn’t particularly important. Sure drop it down to say 5 years and that’s meaningful but now it’s much harder to be an author which means fewer books worth reading.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    I still don't really get how compensation is supposed to work just based on the math. Models are trained on billions of works and have a lifetime of around a year; AI companies (e.g. Anthropic) have revenue in the low billions of dollars a year. Even if you took all of that -- leave nothing for salaries, hardware, utilities, to say nothing of profit -- and applied it to the works in the training data, it would be approximately $1 each. What is that good for? It would have a massive administrative cost and the authors would still get effectively nothing.
    - Retric 1y ago
      I think you’re overestimating the number of authors, and forgetting there’s several AI companies. A revenue sharing agreement with 10% going to creators isn’t unrealistic. Google’s revenue was 300 billion with 100 billion in profits last year, the AI industry may never reach that size but 1$/person on the planet is only 8 billion dollars, drop that to 70% of people are online so your down to 5.6 billion. That’s assuming you’re counting books and individual Facebook posts in any language equally. More realistically there’s only 12k professional journalists in the US but they create a disproportionate amount of value for AI companies.
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        > Google’s revenue was 300 billion with 100 billion in profits last year, the AI industry may never reach that size but 1$/person on the planet is only 8 billion dollars, drop that to 70% of people are online so your down to 5.6 billion. Google is a huge conglomerate and a poor choice for making estimates because the bulk of their revenue comes from "advertising" with no obvious way to distinguish what proportion of that ad revenue is attributable to AI, e.g. what proportion of search ad revenue is attributable to being the same company that runs the ad network, and to being the default search in Android, iOS and Chrome? Nowhere near all of it or even most of it is from AI. "Counting books and individual Facebook posts in any language equally" is kind of the issue. The links from the AI summary things are disproportionately not to the New York Times, they're more often to Reddit and YouTube and community forums on the site of the company whose product you're asking about and Stack Overflow and Wikipedia and random personal blogs and so on. Whereas you might have written an entire book, and that book is very useful and valuable to human readers who want to know about its subject matter, but unless that subject matter is something the general population frequently wants to know about, its value in this context is less than some random Facebook post that provides the answer to a question a lot of people have. And then the only way anybody is getting a significant amount of money is if it's plundering the little guy. Large incumbent media companies with lawyers get a disproportionate take because they're usurping the share of YouTube creators and Substack authors and forum posters who provided more in aggregate value but get squat. And I don't see any legitimacy in having it be Comcast and the Murdoch family who take the little guy's share at the cost of significant overhead and making it harder for smaller AI companies to compete with the bigger ones.
otterley 1y ago
That’s fine, but if you don’t want content taken without compensation, don’t make it available for free on the Internet. You can’t have it both ways, where it’s free to individuals to read but not for machines to do it. That’s just practically impossible.