• mspencer712@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I think you’re right about style. As a software developer myself, I keep thinking back to early commercial / business software terms that listed all of the exhaustive ways you could not add their work to any “information retrieval system.” And I think, ultimately, computers cannot process style. They can process something, and style feels like the closest thing our brains can come up with.

    This feels trite at first, but computers process data. They don’t have a sense of style. They don’t have independent thought, even if you call it a “<think> tag”. Any work product created by a computer from copyrighted information is a derivative work, in the same way a machine-translated version of a popular fiction book is.

    This act of mass corporate disobedience, putting distillate made from our collective human works behind a paywall needs to be punished.

    . . .

    But it won’t be. That bugs me to no end.

    (I feel like my tone became a bit odd, so if it felt like the I was yelling at the poster I replied to, I apologize. The topic bugs me, but what you said is true and you’re also correct.)

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think it will be punished, but not how we hope. The laws will end up rewarding the big data holders (Getty, record labels, publishers) while locking out open source tools. The paywalls will stay and grow. It’ll just formalize a monopoly.

      • mspencer712@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I think this might be hypocritical of me, but in one sense I think I prefer that outcome. Let those existing trained models become the most vile and untouchable of copyright infringing works. Send those ill-gotten corporate gains back to the rights holders.

        What, me? Of course I’ve erased all my copies of those evil, evil models. There’s no way I’m keeping my own copies to run, illicitly, on my own hardware.

        (This probably has terrible consequences I haven’t thought far enough ahead on.)

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          I understand the sentiment but I think it’s foolhardy.

          • The job losses still occur
          • The handful of companies able to pay for the data have a defecto monopoly (Google, OpenAI)
          • That monopoly is used to keep the price tag of state of the art AI tools above consumer levels (your boss can afford to replace you but you can’t afford to compete against him with the same tools).

          And all that mostly benefiting the data holders and big ai companies. Most image data is on platforms like Getty, Deviant Art, Instagram, etc. It’s even worse for music and lit, where three record labels and five publishers own most of it.

          If we don’t get a proper music model before the lawsuits pass, we will never be able to generate music without being told what is or isn’t okay to write about.