What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?
AI doesn’t copy things anymore than a person copies them by attending a concert or museum.
This is such a bizarre rejection of reality
Yeah this scum probably downloaded a few cars back in the days
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
I don’t know the rest but I hate the spending of resources to feed the AI datacenters. It’s not normal building a nuclear powerplant to feed ONE data center.
Because overall people don’t like it, particularly when it comes to creating “art.”
I am aware of a lot of people who are very gung-ho about AI. I don’t know if anybody has actually tried to make a comprehensive survey about people’s disposition toward AI. I wouldn’t expect Lemmy to be representative.
I mean honestly this AI era is the time for these absurd anti-piracy penalties to be enforced. Meta downloads libgen? $250,000 per book plus jail time to the person who’s responsible.
Oh but laws aren’t for the rich and powerful you see!
Always have been. Jpeg
Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.
One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
You know I am somewhat of a large language model myself.
At this rate we will get access to more rights if we can figure out a way to legally classify ourselves as AI.
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
Did this already play out at Reddit? Ai was one of the reasons I left but I believe it’s a different scenario. I freely contributed my content to Reddit for the purposes of building an interactive community, but they changed the terms without my consent. I did NOT contribute my content so they could make money selling it for ai training
The only logical distinction I see with s ai aren’t human: an exception for humans does not apply to non-humans even if the activity is similar
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
AI stans always say stuff like this, but it doesn’t make sense to me at all.
AI does not learn the same way that a human does: it has no senses of its own with which to observe the world or art, it has no lived experiences, it has no agency, preferences or subjectivity, and it has no real intelligence with which to interpret or understand the work that it is copying from. AI is simply a matrix of weights that has arbitrary data superimposed on it by people and companies.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
If you are then you must know that the things you create are certainly indirectly influenced by SOME of the things that you have experienced (be it walking around on a sunny day, your favorite scene from your favorite movie, the lyrics of a song, etc.), AS WELL AS your own unique and creative persona, your own ideas, your own philosophy, and your own personal development.
Look at how an artist creates a painting and compare it to how generative AI creates a painting. Similarly, look at how artists train and learn their craft and compare it to how generative AI models are trained. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
(And that’s still ignoring the obvious corporate element and the four pillars of fair use consideration (US law, not UK, mind you). For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.)
Just say you’re a disc Majors shill lmao. This is Metallica vs Napster all over again
Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
Generative AI uses artificial neural networks, which are based on how we understand brains to connect information (Biological neural networks). You’re right that they have no self generated input like humans do, but their sense of making connections between information is very similar to that of humans. It doesn’t really matter that they don’t have their own experiences, because they are not trying to be humans, they are trying to be as flexible of a ‘mind’ as possible.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
I see anti-AI people say this stuff all the time too. Because it’s a convenient excuse to disregard an opposing opinion as ‘doesn’t know art’, failing to realize or respect that most people have some kind of creative spark and outlet. And I know it wasn’t aimed at me, but before you think I’m dodging the question, I’m a creative working professionally with artists and designers.
Professional creative people and artists use AI too. A lot. Probably more than laypeople, because to use it well and combine it with other interesting ideas, requires a creative and inventive mind. There’s a reason AI is making it’s way all over media, into movies, into games, into books. And I don’t mean as AI slop, but well-implemented, guided AI usage.
I could ask you as well if you’ve ever studied programming, or studied psychology, as those things would all make you more able to understand the similarities between artificial neural networks and biological neural networks. But I don’t need a box to disregard you, the substance of your argument fails to convince me.
At the end of the day, it does matter that humans have their own experiences to mix in. But AI can also store much, much more influences than a human brain can. That effectively means for everything it makes, there is less of a specific source in there from specific artists.
For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.
Fair use considerations do not apply to works that are so substantially different from any influence, only when copyrighted material is directly re-used. If you read Harry Potter and write your own novel about wizards, you do not have to credit nor pay royalties to JK Rowling, so long as it isn’t substantially similar. Without any additional laws prohibiting such, AI is no different. To sue someone over fair use, you typically do have to prove that it infringes on your work, and so far there have not been any successful cases with that argument.
Most negative externalities from AI come from capitalism: Greedy bosses thinking they can replace true human talent with a machine, plagiarists that use it as a convenient tool to harass specific artists, scammers that use it to scam people. But around that exists an entire ecosystem of people just using it for what it should be used for: More and more creativity.
You picked the wrong thread for a nuanced question on a controversial topic.
But it seems the UK indeed has laws for this already if the article is to believed, as they don’t currently allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material (As per the article). As far as I know, in some other jurisdictions, a normal person would absolutely be allowed to pull a bunch of publicly available information, learn from it, and decide to make something new based on objective information that can be found within. And generally, that’s the rationale AI companies used as well, seeing as there have been landmark cases ruled in the past to not be copyright infringement with wide acceptance for computers analyzing copyrighted information, such as against Google, for indexing copyrighted material in their search results. But perhaps an adjacent ruling was never accepted in the UK (which does seem strange, as Google does operate there). But laws are messy, and perhaps there is an exception somewhere, and I’m certainly not an expert on UK law.
But people sadly don’t really come into this thread to discuss the actual details, they just see a headline that invokes a feeling of “AI Bad”, and so you coming in here with a reasonable question makes you a target. I wholly expect to be downvoted as well.
Oh are we giving AI the same rights as humans now? On what grounds?
I never claimed that in this case. As I said in my response: There have been won lawsuits that machines are allowed to index and analyze copyrighted material without infringing on such rights, so long as they only extract objective information, such as what AI typically extracts. I’m not a lawyer, and your jurisdiction may differ, but this page has a good overview: https://blog.apify.com/is-web-scraping-legal/
EDIT: For the US description on that page, it mentions the US case that I referred to: Author’s Guild v Google
You might not remember but decades ago Microsoft was almost split in two. But then it came to pass that George Bush “won” the elections. And the case was dismissed.
In the US justice system, money talks.
- There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
- What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
- Does this put Reddit in a new light? Free content to users but charging for the api to do bulk download such as for ai?
Search is very different to create something.
Disband Copyright
Either get rid of copyright for everything and everyone, or don’t.
But no stupid BULLSHIT exception for AI slop.
hello yes I’m an ai company. let me torrent all the things pls thank you
That’s exactly what Meta did, they torrented the full libgen database of books.
If they can do it, anybody should be able to do it.
I like how their whole excuse to that was “WE DIDN’T SEED ANY OF IT BACK THOUGH” which arguably makes it even worse lol.
Zuck would be a hit and runner…
It doesn’t. You can download anything you want, distribution is what is illegal and criminal.
Downloading is still infringement. Distribution is worse, but I don’t think it’s a criminal matter, still just civil.
Maybe in some weird countries.
Torrent means you download and also upload to others when you have some parts.
Technically it was never illegal in the US to download copywritten content. It was illegal to distribute them. That was literally Meta’s defence in court: they didn’t seed any downloads.
they didn’t seed any downloads
So Meta, 100% leeching.
My mind is AI and I need this content to train it.
I’m not sure if my brain counts as artificial, but with all the microplastics, it sure ain’t organic.
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
I identify as an AI company ☠️
no no, i mean people should actually start utilizing this bullshit. Anyone can start a company and with some technical knowhow you can add somekind of ai crap to it. companies dont have to make profit or anything useful so there is no pressure to do anything with it.
But if it comes to copyright law not applying to ai companies, why should some rich assholes be only ones exploiting that? It might lead to some additional legal bullshit that excludes this hypotetical kind of ai company, but that would also highlight better that the law benefits only the rich.
No more ads on youtube
They are just illegally selling us off as slaves. That is what is happening. All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs, clamping down on this behavior.
Oh good I see Labour are dealing with the real issues in society.
Modern Labour and not giving a fuck about workers, name a more iconic duo.
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so…
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
Exactly. Paul Mc Cartney have been trained on copyrighted material and should give his money back to the majors
That is definitely one of the most cooked takes I’ve heard in a while.
Why would anyone create anything if it can immediately be copied with no compensation to you?
I don’t see how allowing AI robbery barons to steal copyrighted material would benefit a small fish in the pond of IP
Creation happened before intellectual property laws existed.
Creation happens that can be immediately copied with no compensation now, open source software is an example.
How many authors do you think would have written the books they did, if they weren’t able to make a living from their work? Most of the people creating works before copyright either had a patron of some description, or outright worked for an organisation.
You should read the opinion of Stephen King about that precise point. The short version: “I’d write books even if it was illegal”.
The specific works? Who knows. It’s irrelevant
My point is your original premise was wrong. Creation DID happen without IP laws. People DO create with out the need for compensation/copy protection.
I propose, people will create things because they always have.
I think copyright should last maximum 10 years. Plenty of time to earn enough from your creation.
Imagine how advanced we would be, as a civilization, if everything created before 2015 was free for everybody.
Honestly, I think our world would be a lot blander, and we’d have a whole lot less original content.
You probably only consume Hollywood prechewed crap and universal soup they call “music”
Creation is its own incentive.
And I can buy groceries with thoughts and prayers.
Maybe you can download them. Apparently download is theft
Do you make any money out of copyrights?
The original copyright law was created to protect authors from publishers. The current law is an abomination and should be removed.
You’re probably right, but saying we should abolish it altogether is insane. There’s a good reason we have these laws.
There are no good reasons.
Really? Artists getting paid for their work isn’t a good reason?
ArTistS gettiNg paId (after universal gets a 40% cuts because you used the snare sample from Taylor swift ofc)
You don’t need a copyright for that. Copyright doesn’t pay anyone anything.
You know that for the vast majority of human history copyright didn’t exist, and yet people still created art and culture, right?
edit: If you’re gonna downvote, have the balls to explain how I’m wrong.
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
I’m naming my torrent client “AI” and now I have the right to download a car.
But downloading and illegally using that font is okay?
Yes.
Because you have the money and plausible deniability to get away with it if it weren’t for those meddling kids and their dog.
and the music
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths. Sorry but your grandkids shouldn’t profit off of you.
It’s never the grandkids. The Beatles sold the rights to their songs.
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
Yes.
As long as you use AI to generate it
The AI just gives you a 1:1 copy of it’s training data, which is the material. Viola.
God I hope so.
You already likely do. Every book you read and learned from is copyrighted material. Every video you watch on YouTube and learned from is copyrighted material.
The “without permission” is not correct. You’ve got permission to watch/listen/learn from it by them releasing it and you paying any applicable subscription etc costs. AI does the same.
By “use” I actually meant “reproduce portions of” and “make derivative works of”
AI doesn’t do that though.
For sure, AI can reproduce wholesale verbatim copies of text from miscellaneous sources. It can also create images that are so close to random deviantartists’ images that it’s undeniably plagiaristic. I expect this bug will be worked out eventually, but it is currently quite capable of doing this. In other words, you could say the weights contain a lossy encoding of many artists’ works, and those works can (lossily) be eked out of the model with some coercion.
Which AI models? Can you share some examples please?
Here’s a poignant example IMO:
