Well no, just the largest ones who can pay some fine or have nearly endless legal funds to discourage challenges to their practice, this bring a form of a pretend business moat. The average company won’t be able to and will get shredded.
What fine? I thought this new law allows it. Or is it one of those instances where training your AI on copyrighted material and distributing it is fine but actually sourcing it isn‘t so you can‘t legally create a model but also nobody can do anything if you have and use it? That sounds legally very messy.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 10 May 21:03
collapse
You’re assuming most of the commentors here are familiar with the legal technicalities instead of just spouting whatever uninformed opinion they have.
darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
on 10 May 15:40
nextcollapse
If they are training the AI with copyrighted data that they aren’t paying for, then yes, they are doing the same thing as traditional media piracy. While I think piracy laws have been grossly blown out of proportion by entities such as the RIAA and MPAA, these AI companies shouldn’t get a pass for doing what Joe Schmoe would get fined thousands of dollars for on a smaller scale.
taladar@sh.itjust.works
on 10 May 16:01
nextcollapse
In fact when you think about the way organizations like RIAA and MPAA like to calculate damages based on lost potential sales they pull out of thin air training an AI that might make up entire songs that compete with their existing set of songs should be even worse. (not that I want to encourage more of that kind of bullshit potential sales argument)
The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it's something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn't a generalized "you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of" law. It's all about making and distributing copies of the data.
ultranaut@lemmy.world
on 10 May 16:43
nextcollapse
Where does the training data come from seems like the main issue, rather than the training itself. Copying has to take place somewhere for that data to exist. I’m no fan of the current IP regime but it seems like an obvious problem if you get caught making money with terabytes of content you don’t have a license for.
A lot of the griping about AI training involves data that's been freely published. Stable Diffusion, for example, trained on public images available on the internet for anyone to view, but led to all manner of ill-informed public outrage. LLMs train on public forums and news sites. But people have this notion that copyright gives them some kind of absolute control over the stuff they "own" and they suddenly see a way to demand a pound of flesh for what they previously posted in public. It's just not so.
I have the right to analyze what I see. I strongly oppose any move to restrict that right.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 10 May 21:05
nextcollapse
It’s also pretty clear they used a lot of books and other material they didn’t pay for, and obtained via illegal downloads. The practice of which I’m fine with, I just want it legalised for everyone.
I’m wondering when i go to the library and read a book, does this mean i can never become an author as I’m tainted? Or am I only tainted if I stole the book?
To me this is only a theft case.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 11 May 17:44
collapse
That’s the whole problem with AI and artists complaining about theft. You can’t draw a meaningful distinction between what people do and what the ai is doing.
The problem with those things is that the viewer doesn't need that license in order to analyze them. They can just refuse the license. Licenses don't automatically apply, you have to accept them. And since they're contracts they need to offer consideration, not just place restrictions.
An AI model is not a derivative work, it doesn't include any identifiable pieces of the training data.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 11 May 07:48
collapse
it doesn’t include any identifiable pieces of the training data.
It does. For example, Harry Potter books can be easily identified.
the slippery slope here is that you as an artist hear music on the radio, in movies and TV, commercials. All this hearing music is training your brain. If an AI company just plugged in an FM radio and learned from that music I’m sure that a lawsuit could start to make it that no one could listen to anyone’s music without being tainted.
That feels categorically different unless AI has legal standing as a person. We’re talking about training LLMs, there’s not anything more than people using computers going on here.
So then anyone who uses a computer to make music would be in violation?
Or is it some amount of computer generated content? How many notes? If its not a sample of a song, how does one know how much of those notes are attributed to which artist being stolen from?
What if I have someone else listen to a song and they generate a few bars of a song for me? Is it different that a computer listened and then generated output?
To me it sounds like artists were open to some types of violations but not others. If an AI model listened to the radio most of these issues go away unless we are saying that humans who listen to music and write similar songs are OK but people who write music using computers who calculate the statistically most common song are breaking the law.
Potentially yes, if you use existing IP to make music, doing it with a computer isn’t going to change anything about how the law works. It does get super complicated and there’s ambiguity depending on the specifics, but mostly if you do it a not obvious way and no one knows how you did it you’re going to be fine, anything other than that you will potentially get sued, even if whatever you did was a legally permissible use of the IP. Rightsholders generally hate when anyone who isn’t them tries to make money off their IP regardless of how they try to do it or whether they have a right to do it unless they paid for a license.
That sounds like a setup to only go after those you can make money from and not actually protecting IP.
By definition if your song is a hit it is heard by everyone. How do we show my new song is a direct consequence of hearing X song while your new song isn’t due to you hearing X song?
I can see an easy lawsuit by putting out a song and then claiming that anyone who heard it “learned” how to play their new album this way. The fact AI can output something that sounds different than any individual song it learned from means we can claim nearly all works derivative.
The reality is that there’s a bunch of court cases and laws still up in the air about what AI training counts as, and until those are resolved the most we can make is conjecture and vague moral posturing.
Closest we have is likely the court decisions on music sampling and so far those haven’t been consistent, and have mostly hinged on “intent” and “affect on original copy sales”. So based on that logic whether or not AI training counts as copyright infringement is likely going to come down to whether or not shit like “ghibli filters” actually provably (at least as far as a judge is concerned) fuck with Ghibli’s sales.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 11 May 07:45
collapse
court decisions on music sampling and so far those haven’t been consistent,
Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. (1991) - Rapper Biz Markie sampled Gilbert O’Sullivan’s “Alone Again (Naturally)” without permission
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (2005) - any unauthorized sampling, no matter how minimal, is infringement.
VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (2016) - to determine whether use was de minimis it must be considered whether an average audience would recognize appropriation from the original work as present in the accused work.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) - This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 11 May 08:53
collapse
It’s not quite cut and dry as there’s also the recent decisions by the supreme court:
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (2023) - “At issue was the Prince Series created by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of the musician Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. It held Warhol’s changes were insufficiently transformative to fall within fair use for commercial purposes, resolving an issue arising from a split between the Second and Ninth circuits among others.”
Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (also 2023) - “The case deals with a dog toy shaped similar to a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle and label, but with parody elements, which Jack Daniel’s asserts violates their trademark. The Court unambiguously ruled in favor of Jack Daniel’s as the toy company used its parody as its trademark, and leaving the Rogers test on parody intact.”
The aforementioned Rogers test was quoted in both decisions but with pretty different interpretations of the coverage of “parody.”
One thing seems to be the key: intent
As long as AI isn’t purposefully trained to mimic a style to then it’s probably safe, but things like style LoRAs and style CLIP encodings are likely gonna be decided on whether the supreme court decided to have lunch that day.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 11 May 10:26
collapse
Note that both of those rulings are for the original rights holders (and therefore against AI tech).
What’s interesting to me is that we now have a goliath vs goliath fight with AI tech in one corner and mpaa and riaa (+ a lot of case history) in the other.
Either was I can’t see David (us) coming out on top.
"Exploiting copyrighted content" is an incredibly vague concept that is not illegal. Copyright is about distributing copies of copyrighted content.
If I am given a copyrighted book, there are plenty of ways that I can exploit that book that are not against copyright. I could make paper airplanes out of its pages. I could burn it for heat. I could even read it and learn from its contents. The one thing I can't do is distribute copies of it.
It’s about making copies, not just distributing them, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to be bound by a software eula because I wouldn’t need a license to copy the content to my computer ram to run it.
The enforceability of EULAs varies with jurisdiction and with the actual contents of the EULA. It's by no means a universally accepted thing.
It's funny how suddenly large chunks of the Internet are cheering on EULAs and copyright enforcement by giant megacorporations because they've become convinced that AI is Satan.
I’m absolutely against the idea of EULAs but the fact remains they are only enforceable because it’s the copying that is the reserved right, not the distribution. If it was distribution then second hand sales would be prohibitable (though thanks to going digital only that loop hole is getting pulled shut slowly but surely).
Copyright laws are not universally enforceable in general, so I fail to see your point. They are enforceable in the US where the big AI companies looking for a free lunch are operating though so let’s focus on that shall we?
If I have to pay to use copyright material to train my own Actual Intelligence, I don’t see why companies with massive development budgets should get to use vastly more material to train their “AI” models for free.
It’s not only about copying or distribution, but also use and reproduction. I can buy a legit DVD and play it in my own home and all is fine. Then I play it on my bar’s tv, in front of 100 people, and now it’s illegal. I can listen to a song however many times I want, but I can’t use it for anything other than private listening. In theory you should pay even if you want to make a video montage to show at your wedding.
Right now most licenses for copyrighted material specify that you use said material only for personal consumption. To use it for profit you need a special license
Copyrighted material can be used or reproduced only with a license that allows for it. If the license forbids you from using the copyrighted material for business purposes, and you do it anyway, then it’s pirating.
Well I agree in principle (I disagree that AI training is necessarily “stealing”), but downloading copyrighted material for which you do not own a license is textbook piracy, regardless of intent
That would be hilarious if someone made a website showing how they are using pirated Nintendo games (complete with screenshots of the games, etc) to show how they are “training” their AI just to watch Nintendo freak out.
The record companies already have all the data and all the rights. Petitions like these are meant to rig the game in their favor, so we get the official Warner Music AI at a high price point with licensing fees, and anything open source is deemed illegal and cant be used in products.
If you’re on the side that stands with Disney, you are probably on the wrong one.
Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 10 May 14:25
nextcollapse
So did this UK “centre-left” party turn out to be a Trojan horse or what? They’ve dismantled trans rights. They plan on using AI thought police to ‘predict’ future crimes and criminals. And now they want multibillion corporations to have free access to anyone’s work without compensation.
If I hadn’t looked this political party up on Wikipedia, by this point I would be assuming that they’re a bunch of conservative wankers on Elon Musk’s payroll.
Lodespawn@aussie.zone
on 10 May 14:37
nextcollapse
Is anyone calling UK Labour centre-left? I would have thought theyd be sitting just inside the lower right quadrant of the political compass, they might have been centre left when Corbyn was the leader but that was a while ago and Starmer isn’t that kinda guy.
Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 10 May 14:43
collapse
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Lodespawn@aussie.zone
on 10 May 15:10
nextcollapse
Kind of, its a little more complicated than that, I think its probably more accurate to say they have their own issues. The UK system is pretty different from the shitshow in the US.
They also use FPTP but have no electoral college and multiple parties including 4 major parties. So while there are multiple parties, in any given electorate you really need to vote for the party you hate the least that has a chance of winning. The two parties in an electorate that have a chance of winning varies across electorates and regions. They also have the House of Lords instead of a senate with members of House mostly being appointed (for life) rather than elected.
So … its own nonsense. Still seems less shithouse than the US system.
For life you say? Appointed? Sounds like someone already won in life and could retire at birth (owners class) then got punished by having to show up every once in a while to “make laws”.
jamescrakemerani@feddit.uk
on 11 May 03:57
nextcollapse
Lords in the UK get a tax free allowance of £323 for every day they actually turn up to work. But nothing actually forces them to show up.
I think they like the free money, the old money boys club and the chances to tell the poora whats best for them …
woelkchen@lemmy.world
on 10 May 15:32
nextcollapse
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Yes, that’s why Europeans make fun of both the UK and its former colony.
Australias Labor party is sits slightly progressive and slightly left of centre, the greens sits hard left/progressive, given we have more than 8 parties, 4 of which could be considered major parties with 2 of those in the left and none of the issues associated with FPTP and that electoral college nonsense I think Australia is doing alright in the scheme of things, especially compared with the US and UK.
godownloadacar@lemmy.cafe
on 12 May 08:01
collapse
Yes. So is France.
But at least you can vote for a proper left wing party. The social democrats will whine at you but they can’t say you’re secretly voting for the right since they’re the one refusing a broad left coalition
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 10 May 14:38
nextcollapse
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. Before merges and changes the main groups were called Whigs and Tories, both of which primarily became Conservative. Modern Liberals brought back the original Liberal Party, while Liberal Democrats were formed by part of Labour and part of the modern Liberals. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
You've got the details a little wrong. The original two were the Whigs and the Tories, as you say. The Whigs became the Liberals who became the modern day Liberal Democrats, who still exist but haven't been in power outside of being a junior member of a coalition for a century. Tories became the Conservatives, who are still one of the major two and are regularly still called the Tories. There was a faction that broke away from the Whigs called the Liberal Unionists, who merged into the Conservatives, but they're separate from the Liberals. Labour is not a successor to either of them, though they did make some strategic agreements with the Liberals early on. In the early 1900s, Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties.
It is still consistently a two-party system. One of the historic parties got replaced and there is a stronger presence for minor parties than there is in the states (see especially the SNP in the past decade and the Tory-LibDem coalition in 2010), but still a two-party system
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 11 May 11:03
collapse
Thank you, I tried to condense it and may have condensed a little too hard aha
Shares of the vote in general elections since 1832 received by Conservatives[note 1] (blue), Liberals/Liberal Democrats[note 2] (orange), Labour (red) and others (grey)[1][2][3]
The Conservatives forming from a split in the Liberal party doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are two very different parties. Or at least they used to be, until New Labour became a thing…
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we’re not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
jamescrakemerani@feddit.uk
on 11 May 04:00
collapse
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we’re not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
Yes this is definitely true. Although these days unfortunately it seems to be both the Conservatives, and Labour who are influenced by Reform. Even Labour have started parroting some of the same lines about immigration etc. I’m always disappointed about how little talk there is of stuff like cost of living, rent etc since these are often at the forefront of my mind whenever I vote.
Can we just shut the fuck up about this fantasy “centre-left” already? There has not been a centre in a very long time, let alone a left. Regardless far-left or far-right, only options are authoritarian and not libertarian. Go compare Switzerland to enlighten yourself.
It’s pop electric music. Idk what you expect from it. But a quick look at her history shows she does a lot of collabs with different people and has at least one number one album. For what’s that worth. Your comment just sounds like a high schooler upset that people like other types of music.
My favorite part of her wiki page is this:
“Genesis” quotes and gets its title from the first book of the bible, which it shares a name with.
You’re going to waste your time criticizing something like this?
Please, save the copyright industry! If using these for AI isnt made ridiculously expensive, we will never be able to build a proper monopoly on top of this tech!
They get popular artists to sign these things but its the record companies (all three of them) that are really behind this.
Thought experiment: What if AI companies were allowed to use copyrighted material for free as long as they release their models to the public? Want to keep your model private? Pay up. Similar to the GPL.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 10 May 17:52
nextcollapse
The copyright industry would never accept that. Where’s the money for them?
boramalper@lemmy.world
on 10 May 20:25
nextcollapse
Fun fact: Copyright is also the basis on which you enforce copyleft provisions such as the those in GPL. In a world without copyright, there are no software licenses yet alone copyleft.
I know it’s very challenging for “this community” (FOSS users & developers let’s say) because a significant number of them also support shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub and Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive so how do we reconcile “copyleft (therefore copyright) good” with “copyright bad”?
I don’t have a clear answer yet but maybe the difference is as simple as violating copyright for personal purposes vs business purposes? Anyway…
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
It sounds plausible but it’s wrong. Without copyright, you are allowed to copy, use, and distribute all digital works regardless but being legally allowed doesn’t mean (a) that you are able to (e.g. copying might be ~impossible due to DRM and other security measures) and (b) that you are entitled to the source code of such work so someone can take your FOSS code, put it in their proprietary software, and then distribute only the binaries.
Copyleft licenses, through copyright, enforce sharing.
The whole point for many, me included, is for everyone to be able to use any works in any way we want. Including putting “open source” code into “proprietary” binaries. Because there are no proprietary binaries without IP protections - everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it.
CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world
on 11 May 09:54
collapse
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.
How is that the case? I’ve got pretty much zero experience with decompiling software, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone who does say that before. I genuinely can’t imagine that it’s easier to work with say, decompiling a game to make changes to it rather than just having the source available for it.
I suppose unless the context is just regarding running software then of course it’s easier to just run a binary that’s already a binary - but then I’m not sure I see where decompiling comes into relevance.
Compilers strip all the bullshit from the code. Most software projects have shitty code structure and navigating them without prior exposure is a bloody nightmare. Everything gets a lot easier in binary.
Compiler optimisations flatten the code into an easier to understand structure. You don’t have to just around function definitions in multiple files when the compiler inlined them all for you to see on one screen.
Assembly debuggers usually have a lot more features than source code based ones: trapping OS calls, scripting, etc. They make life so much easier.
Most software developers have no fucking clue how computers work, it’s all magic to them. People joke about “vibe coding with AI” these days, but let’s be real, 99% of software developers are vibe coders, but with Google instead of AI. Of course these people will never understand a bit of assembly, they can’t even fucking grasp the basics of higher level languages!
There’s nothing hard about binaries, code is code.
CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world
on 11 May 06:21
collapse
The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
boramalper@lemmy.world
on 11 May 08:14
nextcollapse
That’s fair! Though I find it (new laws that enforce the principles of copyleft) pretty unlikely so I’d much prefer a world with copyright + copyleft (GPL) than a world without either where mega corporations can exploit the commons without being obliged to share back.
It still devalues the work of individual creators.
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe
on 11 May 10:12
collapse
It devalues universal share value yea.
As if the music industry wasn’t exploiting artists already. I use Chatgpt to learn about chord progressions. Sue me
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 10 May 16:51
nextcollapse
Ahh. Paul McCartney. Looks like Lemmy has finally found a billionaire it likes.
I’m sure it is The Beatles’ activism for social change that won people over. Who could forget their great protest song “The Taxman”, bravely taking a stand against the 95% tax rate. Truly, the 60ies were a time of liberation.
I love the people that compare one aspect of history and forget the rest, lol. The past sucked and our current future sucks.
John Lennon was a piece of shit.
“Lemmy has found a billionaire it likes.” - reads one post makes a determination because of one post.
God I fucking hate Lemmy. It is the same nonsense like this Lemmy gives reddit crap about
One post doesnt make a platform like a billionaire. Also, if a Billionaire can speak about against something that protects artists then all the power to them. Slapping the word billionaire on something doesn’t make everything a billionaire does bad.
I hate billionaires as much as the next Lemmy user but it is sentiments like this that are nonsense.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
on 10 May 22:49
collapse
John Lennon admitted to hitting an ex girlfriend. He came out, apologised for it, and said he was trying to better himself but he had a whole load of problems.
Bizarrely, his ex later came out and said John didn’t beat her and that she didn’t know what he was talking about.
Ringo has also admitted to hitting a girlfriend before.
There are plenty of situations where you can hit someone and then feel bad and apologize for that, which in my opinion do not make you a piece of shit.
Say, I have BAD, ASD, probably ADHD (with the previous two hard to tell, a lot of intersections really and comorbidity … long story). I do get emotional, sometimes with destructive results. Haven’t hit anyone in many years, but can easily imagine doing that.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
on 11 May 07:58
collapse
A guy says he was a PoS among other things. I answer that. You answer me. There comes my reply we’re talking about. Doesn’t seem weird in the same thread.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
on 12 May 01:48
collapse
The content of your reply to me was the weird thing, not the fact that you replied itself…
rational_lib@lemmy.world
on 10 May 17:11
nextcollapse
I’m plenty open to questioning every part of copyright (has the idea ever actually been proven to be worth the enormous costs? It’s like an infinity-percent tariff on anything information related.) but the same copyright should apply to everbody. It sounds like this proposal gives a specific pass to corporations developing AI - anything these corporations can access should be accessible to the general public as well. If you can use a song to train an AI for free, a human artist should also be allowed to use it directly and turn it into a new work.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world
on 10 May 18:51
nextcollapse
But you, casual BitTorrent, eDonkey (I like good old things) and such user, can’t.
It’s literally a law allowing people doing some business violate a right of others, or, looking at that from another side, making only people not working for some companies subject to a law …
What I mean - at some point in my stupid life I thought only individuals should ever be subjects of law. Where now the sides are the government and some individual, a representative (or a chain of people making decisions) of the government should be a side, not its entirety.
For everything happening a specific person, easy to determine, should be legally responsible. Or a group of people (say, a chain from top to this specific one in a hierarchy).
Because otherwise this happens, the differentiation between a person and a business and so on allows other differentiation kinds, and also a person having fewer rights than a business or some other organization. And it will always drift in that direction, because a group is stronger than an individual.
And in this specific case somebody would be able to sue the prime minister.
OK, it’s an utopia, similar to anarcho-capitalism, just in a different dimension, in that of responsibility.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 01:42
nextcollapse
You’re talking about illegally acquiring content, which isn’t the same as training AI off legally acquired/viewed content.
The AI just gives you a 1:1 copy of it’s training data, which is the material. Viola.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 01:39
nextcollapse
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.
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.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 22:15
collapse
Which AI models? Can you share some examples please?
He used AI to Isolate John’s voice from an old Demo. As long as a percentage of the proceeds of the song goes to John’s estate, I don’t think it’s quite the same as AI ripping off artists.
hopesdead@startrek.website
on 11 May 00:23
collapse
No it isn’t but I still refuse to choose on purpose to listen to that song. I don’t even know the name.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I can’t stop from hearing the song out in the wild. However I will not seek it out. I just do not want to hear a song purposefully made with AI in such a manner. I’m still bitter that LOVE won a Grammy over the soundtrack to Across the Universe. They only gave the award to LOVE because George Martin was involved in it.
How funny this is gonna get when AI copyrights Nintendo stuff. Ah man I got my popcorn ready.
CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
on 11 May 04:46
nextcollapse
They’re not gonna do anything about it for the same reason any other litigious company hasn’t done anything thus far. They’re looking to benefit from AI by cutting costs. If the tech wasn’t beneficiary to these big tech conglomerates they would’ve already sued their asses to oblivion, but since they do care they’ll let AI train on their copyrighted material.
perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
on 11 May 13:44
collapse
“Generate a movie in the style of star wars”
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
on 11 May 00:03
nextcollapse
I’d rather people not profiting off copyrighted work be permitted than those who profit off it
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
on 11 May 00:21
nextcollapse
I read this as pro-piracy and anti-AI, generally speaking, since the former is for personal use (art should be free to share and enjoy) while the latter is for commercial use (you should not be allowed to freely profit off the work of artists).
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
on 11 May 02:05
nextcollapse
I intended it that way
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe
on 11 May 10:07
collapse
Models are open. Nothing’s stopping you to rent a GPU and run them youself
AtariDump@lemmy.world
on 11 May 00:29
nextcollapse
What’s a Dua Lipa?
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
on 11 May 01:02
nextcollapse
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.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 01:38
nextcollapse
While I understand their position, I disagree with it.
Training AI on copyrighted data - let’s take music for example - is no different to a kid at home listening to Beatles songs all day and using that as inspiration while learning how to write songs or play an instrument.
You cant copyright a style of music, a sound, or a song structure. As long as the AI isn’t just reproducing the copyrighted content “word for word”, I don’t see what the issue is.
Does the studio ghibli artist own that style of drawing? No, because you can’t own something like that. Others are free to draw whatever they want while replicating that style.
kevin2107@lemmy.world
on 11 May 01:40
nextcollapse
Some company’s own some wildly absurd things, copyright is only enforced if you have the money to do your own policing sometimes in multiple continents
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 02:14
nextcollapse
They do, but the point still stands. No one “owns” what these AIs are learning. That’s what they’re doing - learning, and they’re learning from copyrighted material the same way people learn from copyrighted material. The copyright holders - mainly artists - are just super upset about it because it’s showing that what they provide can be easily learned and emulated by computers.
They’re the horse and carriage sellers when cars were invented.
You miss the part where the copyright owner did not assign them the rights to use the material for such a purpose, and yes most copyright does cover a ton of stuff like retransmission, reproduction, public production and a bunch of other shit which is all separate license. It’s not so simple as “they did what a human does” because even the WAYS a human uses said material is limited under the terms of the copyright
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 07:35
collapse
But they didn’t use it for any of those purposes. Training an AI model isn’t doing any of that. Which do you think they did specifically?
Humans can learn from any copyrighted material they want to. Copyright doesn’t, and can’t, prevent that.
a) An AI is not a person. We do not WANT an AI to be regarded as equal to a person under law. That’s a terrible idea
b) How is that AI training material being generated? Did they buy copies of every copyrighted song and every movie by every artist to include in the training data? If it’s music and streamed, are they paying the artist royalties based on every “play” the AI is processing during training the same as of a human played the song over and over again to learn a long? How about sheet music? Because if a PERSON is learning from training material, the license for sheet music and training materials is different than a playable copy of the same work.
I’m willing to bet that the AI companies didn’t even pay for the regular copies of works much less ones licensed for use as training materials for humans, but it didn’t matter because an AI is an advanced algorithm and NOT A HUMAN.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 02:18
collapse
a) No one is suggesting AI be regarded as equal to a person under law though?
b) if the music is being streamed then it’s up to the streaming company to pay the artists royalties. I have Spotify and I don’t pay the artists - Spotify does.
If the argument is “the people feeding data into the AI illegally acquired the content” then sure, argue that and prosecute them for piracy or whatever. That’s not the argument that is being made though.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 11 May 08:27
collapse
That’s not the argument that is being made though.
In Meta’s court case it is one of the arguments.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 08:34
collapse
That arguments not going to be of any use then.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
on 11 May 02:47
nextcollapse
if i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that’s illegal. same thing.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website
on 11 May 04:48
nextcollapse
On the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital.
If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
on 11 May 05:38
collapse
well yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
FiskFisk33@startrek.website
on 11 May 08:23
collapse
Yup. I don’t think training should be considered breaking copyright. Regurgitating though should.
There are examples of use cases besides the right now obvious one of LLMs “creating” “original” content.
One that comes to my mind is indexing books. Allowing for people to search for books based on a description.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 07:16
nextcollapse
That’s not what AI is doing though. A better analogy using your book example would be learning a book by heart, then going and writing a new book in that same style.
Is that illegal? No.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
on 11 May 07:51
collapse
but that’s not what they’re doing when they’re spitting out open source code verbatim, with no attribution or license
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 08:31
collapse
They don’t do that.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
on 11 May 13:08
collapse
except that they regularly do. It isn’t even news at this point
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 22:29
collapse
can you please show me some examples? Should be easy to find them based on your comment.
godownloadacar@lemmy.cafe
on 12 May 08:10
collapse
Exactly I’m a data engineer and people have no clue what they’re talking about in this thread.
If we require copyright for transformative work that would mean trillions lost in growth - its just something that cant even happen no matter how hard we’d want it. Most people are not even aware of the implications such copyright overreach would have.
So do you target AI training explicitly? How can that he even enforced? Is my review sentiment evaluation machine illegal now? What if I RAG copyrighted content in am I in jail now? How could this possible be ever enforced? It’s so stupid.
This issue is dominated by tech illiterate who jusy want to be angry at corporations but instead of doing something about it they fall for copyright propaganda.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
on 11 May 07:38
nextcollapse
Hit the nail on the head.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 11 May 08:25
nextcollapse
So do you target AI training explicitly?
No. Same rules as everyone else.
How can that he even enforced?
Disclosure of training sources
Is my review sentiment evaluation machine illegal now?
If your sources are copyrighted, yes.
What if I RAG copyrighted content in am I in jail now?
Unlikely. None payment of restitution in a civil case could end in jail via contempt of court.
How could this possible be ever enforced?
The same way other copyright claims are enforced.
This issue is dominated by tech illiterate
Literacy in technology has no effect on the law.
fall for copyright propaganda.
We’re had many years of publishing strengthening their legal position. It’s case law, not propaganda.
MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
on 11 May 18:07
collapse
If we don’t know how to control our emotions, they will lead us to make bad decisions. That emotion will only be temporary, but the decision will be permanent, and we’ll regret it later.
minoscopede@lemmy.world
on 11 May 02:32
nextcollapse
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com
on 11 May 03:18
nextcollapse
I should create an AI start up and torrent all the content.
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.
Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com
on 11 May 07:27
nextcollapse
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.
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.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world
on 11 May 08:01
nextcollapse
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.
Torrent means you download and also upload to others when you have some parts.
gradual@lemmings.world
on 12 May 13:24
nextcollapse
Kind of.
You can set your upload limit to 0 and not seed anything while still downloading.
Downloading is still 100% illegal in the US, though. However it’s up to the copyright holders to pursue criminal penalties, which I’m surprised isn’t happening with facebook.
Everyone who has evidence that facebook illegally downloaded their copyrighted material has a case to bring before a court.
No, not really. First of all, you can disable uploads. Second, you can use a seed box hosted in a country which doesn’t prosecute uploaders. So, you can be clean for all legal intents and purposes.
Except the default is sharing. So, if you disable the upload you are leeching on purpose. That can be used against you in court. You did what you did for profit and not for sharing. 🤷♂️
It’s not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn’t be the type of scam that it was.
Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.
A company that makes negative income every quarter forever, and whose latest edition costs a magnitude more power and is worse than the previous, is worth between $150 Bn and $300 Bn. Many other competing companies equally overvalued.
These are businesses who are only valuable because people keep investing in them. A Ponzi Scheme.
MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
on 11 May 17:17
nextcollapse
AI has been around for many years, and a lot has happened in that time. It’s had periods of high and low interest, and during its lows, it’s been dubbed AI winter.
And the current AI spring is just old people buying into bullshit marketing and putting all their money in a Ponze Scheme.
MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
on 11 May 18:40
collapse
Throughout history, many things have been spent on useless things, but saying that AI is a Ponze scheme is, I feel, the same as saying that the Apollo program is a Ponze scheme or that government-funded research is another Ponze scheme.
PS: There were people who were against the Apollo program because they considered it an unnecessary expense, although today the Apollo program is more remembered.
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.
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe
on 11 May 10:06
nextcollapse
Well another two idiots that I’ll never listen to. Hey Metallica isn’t alone now
BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
on 11 May 11:08
collapse
It’s always the people that fear for their assets that want things to stay the same.
I find it interesting that people who were pro pirating, are now against AI companies using copyrighted materials.
Personally, I think copyright was a dumb concept and shouldn’t exist. It’s time we get rid of it.
nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
on 11 May 12:41
nextcollapse
You should tell these companies then, because after pirating all the copyrighted information they will absolutely push for IP protections for AI output.
BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
on 11 May 17:11
collapse
Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with. I never said AI companies are good or that they should be allowed to do everything, just that the copyright issue is not the problem for me.
Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with.
Cool but that issue is not in play here. That is not even close to a mainstream position and none of the actual players in this are working towards that outcome. Taking one side of this on that basis is silly.
BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
on 12 May 19:47
collapse
You can call me ‘silly’ if you want, I’ve been called worse :-D
Does it matter that a position is mainstream for defending it ? I haven’t taken any “sides” on the AI topic in this thread, just stated my opinions regarding the subject of intellectual property, which is very inconsequential, furthermore we are on lemmy, that is not mainstream either. Do we have to “take side” and be split on every topic, tribally defending our “side”, because the other side are obviously idiots ?
Slight difference between little Johny torrrenting the latest movie for personal use and an AI company doing it for commercial gain.
BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
on 11 May 17:16
collapse
I’m an advocate of full copyleft mentality : free and open source for any use, including commercial. If I’m sharing my work then anyone can do anything with it, I’m not entirely sure about attribution yet though, probably a remnant of being raised in this society…
I wonder how they decided which artist to include in the thumbnail image.
Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
on 11 May 17:10
collapse
Moneys decided it. No one is going to click on a image for a old wrinkly white guy
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
on 11 May 13:16
nextcollapse
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.
AI really shows the absurdity of intellectual property as a concept, the very way we learn, every idea we can have, every mental image we can create is the sum of copying and adapting the things we perceive and ideas that have predated our own, you can see this from the earliest forms of art where simple shapes and patterns were transmuted and adapted into increasingly complex ones or through the influence of old innovations into new ones, for example the influence of automatons on weaving looms with punched pegs and their influence on babbage machines and eventually computers. IP is ontological incoherent for this reason you cannot “own” an idea so much as you can own the water of one part of a stream
Oh yes, I am not saying that at all. I am still very unsure on my views of AI from a precautionary standpoint and I think that its commercial use will lead to more harm than good but if these things are the closest analogs we have to looking at how humans learn and create it shows IP is ridiculous- I mean we do not even need them to see this, if an idea was purely and solely one person’s property the idea of someone from the sentinel island (assuming they have not left and learnt oncology) inventing the cure for brain cancer is as likely as a team of oncologists at Oxford doing it.
Absurd obscenities you spew my friend, the fact that an artist take influences from any kind of art form doesn’t mean the end result is not original and it is not intellectual property as that
godownloadacar@lemmy.cafe
on 12 May 08:05
collapse
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
ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
on 11 May 23:12
nextcollapse
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.
pirrrrrrrr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 May 00:30
collapse
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: 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.
Oh I agree money talks in the US justice system, but as the page shows, these laws also exist elsewhere, such as in the EU. And even if I or you don’t agree with them, they are still the case law that determines the legality of these things. For me that aligns with my ethical stance as well, but probably not yours.
I know they exist outside the US. I’m European. But there are too many terms of use that say that in case of problems they go to courts in the US that they will do everything on their hand to do the sameifn this case.
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.)
ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
on 12 May 00:55
nextcollapse
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.
godownloadacar@lemmy.cafe
on 12 May 07:50
collapse
Just say you’re a disc Majors shill lmao. This is Metallica vs Napster all over again
In this context they’re identical - some automated process looking at all your content. While some of these agents may be honest, there’s no real distinction from search or ai or archive.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
on 11 May 17:02
nextcollapse
Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, but make their living day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output, because they don’t get any revenue streams from it to begin with. Realistically they’re the people most of us should identify with, but instead we rally behind the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they represent us. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.
sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
on 11 May 23:18
nextcollapse
Taylor swift is another one... She really fought them record labels lol
Good for her but she has no class solidarity with peasants anymore than the rest of owner class.
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!
HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
on 11 May 22:23
nextcollapse
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?
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
Edit: if you’re going to downvote me, can you explain why? I am not saying AI is a good thing here. I’m just asking for evidence that it’s universally disliked, i.e. there aren’t a lot of fans. It seems there are lots of people coming to the defense of AI in this thread, so it clearly isn’t universally disliked.
HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
on 12 May 01:33
nextcollapse
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 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.
You’ve explained your personal opinion, and while I think it’s a sensible opinion, I was asking about the universal opinion on AI. And I don’t think there is a consensus that it’s bad. Like I don’t even understand how that’s controversial – everywhere you look, people are talking about AI in broadly mixed terms.
Hugely popular, mostly with a bunch of dorks nobody likes that much.
People are getting the message now, but when it first came out, there were so many posts about what ChatGPT had to say about the topic, and the posters never seemed to understand why nobody cared.
Sanguine_Sasquatch@lemmy.world
on 12 May 12:11
collapse
Nazism was hugely popular in Germany in the early 20th century, but was it a good thing?
gradual@lemmings.world
on 12 May 13:18
nextcollapse
Analogies are fallacies. All they do is reveal that you can’t argue the merits of the topic at hand, so you need to derail and distract by pivoting to something else.
Now we need to debate the accuracy of your analogy, which is never 1:1, instead of talking about what we were talking about previously.
You’re also arguing with the wrong person. You should be talking to the person who argued “AI is a negative because pretty much nobody likes it” instead of the person who says it’s not true that “nobody likes it.”
You’re literally only looking for an angle to shit on AI so you can fit in with the average idiots.
AI discussion at this point are litmus tests for who is average that lets other average people do their thinking for them. It really puts into perspective how much popular opinion should be scrutinized.
Totally agree. This kind of crap started happening after the great reddit exodus of 23. Shitty reddit mods made their way to lemmy and this is what we get.
If you wanna see something cool just type the word “trans” into your comment and watch the downvotes come in!
noun
a. an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (such as a letter, a painting, a table, or a dress)
b. one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression
c. matter to be set especially for printing; also: something considered printable (such as an advertisement or news story)
verb
a. to make a copy or copies of
b. to model oneself on
c. to transfer (data, text, etc.) from one location to another, especially in computing
I can’t believe I just had to provide you with a definition of the word copy.
Are you freaking serious!!!
Being inspired by and creating an original production is not the same as copying if that original work is inspired by other artists!!!
By your definition of copying because Elvis Presley was inspired by Muddy Waters they made the exact same music!
LLMs don’t produce copyrighted material they take inspiration from the training data so to speak. They create original productions.
In the same way that you can envision the Mona Lisa in your head but you couldn’t paint it by hand.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
on 13 May 09:02
collapse
You know copying literal brushstrokes and traces identifiable from real artists is different than being inspired, it’s amazing the level of denial you cultists will self induce to keep it making sense.
Your god is not valuable enough to give more rights than human beings. Sorry
I don’t care what techbro conmen told you.
AI will never be a replacement for actual creativity, and is already being legislated against properly in civilized countries.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
The fact that you keep calling llm’s AI simply indicate your ignorance as to what you’re even talking about.
They’re not copying brush Strokes they’re creating their own.
You have no idea how these things work what they are or even what they do you’re just on the bandwagon hating these tools for reasons that you don’t even understand yourself.
If you’re so upset with all this stuff go live in a Luddite community or something.
The person you’re replying to is right, you’re a cultist. You desperately desire to be able to skip to the end where you make a bunch of money off your ‘art’ utilizing tools whose largest claims to fame currently are literally copying the Ghibli style and being bad at math.
There are legitimate uses for AI, art is not one of them - and anyone that can actually appreciate art will always reject you.
No. He’s not right. Not at all. The reason that you and the other person think you’re right is because you’re ignorant you haven’t studied history and the only reason you sound so confident is because you ate a dunning Kruger sandwich.
What you are is effectively a religious manuscript writer during the time of Gutenberg when he invented the printing press. The machine was called heresy because it would have removed the power from the clergy or so they thought in any case.
Any sufficiently impactful technology will create people like you that push against it mostly due to fear of some kind.
Notable technology breakthrough met with severe skepticism include things like electricity the automobile and vaccines.
There are a very very few manuscript writers left in the world because of the printing press yet here we are nevertheless.
A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.
Good. Copyright and patent laws need to die.
All the money wasted enforcing them and taken from customers could be better spent on other things.
Creators will still create, as they always have. We just won’t have millionaire scumbags such as ‘paul mccartney’ living like kings while children starve.
mechoman444@lemmy.world
on 12 May 13:20
nextcollapse
Lol says the guy that’s probably going to pirate GTA 6.
And how do you propose people you claim will continue to create be compensated for their work when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?
Things like rent won’t be so expensive because landlords will have less of an excuse to charge customers more money. So, in essence you’re not even arguing for compensating creators for their work; you’re arguing for compensating their feudal lords.
when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?
Corporations will also make less money because there are no copyright and patent laws. Your cognitive dissonance is on full display here.
This is how we put more money in the hands of the working class. It’'s sad watching you fight tooth and nail against it just as you’ve been conditioned to do.
I’m not moving any goalposts nor am I making any assumptions. You are upset because rather than learn from your cognitive dissonance, you attack the person who calls it out.
Also leave you naive childish and idiotic anti-whatever proselytizing for you racist uncle over thanksgiving dinner.
Hey, you’re the one who’s arguing to exacerbate the disparity in wealth. Not me.
My original comment was about protecting intellectual property from theft, you responded with some bullshit about landlords charging too much rent which has nothing to do with intellectual theft. That is a textbook definition of moving the goal post.
Then you made assumptions about what I may or may not believe or think.
And now in this most recent comment you are asserting something that I did not say. I’m not arguing for or against the disparity in wealth.
Are you going to address my question? How do you propose that people who create intellectual property be compensated for their property? How do you propose you protect these people from intellectual theft? Please refrain from responding with anything other than the answer to this question I want you to propose a mechanism that will protect people from intellectual theft.
ONCE AGAIN THIS IS ABOUT INTELLECTUAL THEFT.
Also stop using the term cognitive dissonance you clearly have no clue what it means.
This is a terrible take. Sure. There are issues with the system, but these laws protect smaller musicians and inventors from having their ideas stolen and profited upon by larger players.
Without patent laws, there’s no reason to ever “buyout” a design from an inventor, or for smaller songwriters to ever get paid again. A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it, and you would get nothing for all of the time and effort that you put into it.
Most musicians and inventors never make any significant amounts money off of their music or inventions.
There is an extremely small pool of creators who make an egregious amount of money off of their creations.
A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it
They would make less money overall if they did not have copyright and patent laws to help them. It’s sad watching you people go to bat for laws that exist solely to make rich people richer, but it’s why you’re average.
I agree that most creators don’t become wealthy, and yes, there’s plenty of abuse and inequality in how IP laws are applied. But removing those laws wouldn’t solve that - it would just give even more power to the entities with the most money, reach, and legal muscle.
Without IP protections, smaller inventors and musicians wouldn’t even have the option to negotiate or earn anything off their work. A major label or corporation could just take it, polish it, and release it as their own without any consequences.
So while the system isn’t perfect, saying it “only exists to make the rich richer” misses the point. The alternative isn’t more equity, it’s no recourse at all for the little guy.
threaded - newest
Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa should release a song together.
Don’t worry, if they don’t you can just use ai to make them.
Why? Did you learn nothing from her duet with Elton The John?
Cold Heart? I like that song.
Just a shame Elton was in it.
What has Elton John done?
Don’t Let Me Down, Just Don’t Start Now
In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
Well no, just the largest ones who can pay some fine or have nearly endless legal funds to discourage challenges to their practice, this bring a form of a pretend business moat. The average company won’t be able to and will get shredded.
What fine? I thought this new law allows it. Or is it one of those instances where training your AI on copyrighted material and distributing it is fine but actually sourcing it isn‘t so you can‘t legally create a model but also nobody can do anything if you have and use it? That sounds legally very messy.
You’re assuming most of the commentors here are familiar with the legal technicalities instead of just spouting whatever uninformed opinion they have.
No, because training an AI is not "pirating."
If they are training the AI with copyrighted data that they aren’t paying for, then yes, they are doing the same thing as traditional media piracy. While I think piracy laws have been grossly blown out of proportion by entities such as the RIAA and MPAA, these AI companies shouldn’t get a pass for doing what Joe Schmoe would get fined thousands of dollars for on a smaller scale.
In fact when you think about the way organizations like RIAA and MPAA like to calculate damages based on lost potential sales they pull out of thin air training an AI that might make up entire songs that compete with their existing set of songs should be even worse. (not that I want to encourage more of that kind of bullshit potential sales argument)
The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it's something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn't a generalized "you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of" law. It's all about making and distributing copies of the data.
Where does the training data come from seems like the main issue, rather than the training itself. Copying has to take place somewhere for that data to exist. I’m no fan of the current IP regime but it seems like an obvious problem if you get caught making money with terabytes of content you don’t have a license for.
A lot of the griping about AI training involves data that's been freely published. Stable Diffusion, for example, trained on public images available on the internet for anyone to view, but led to all manner of ill-informed public outrage. LLMs train on public forums and news sites. But people have this notion that copyright gives them some kind of absolute control over the stuff they "own" and they suddenly see a way to demand a pound of flesh for what they previously posted in public. It's just not so.
I have the right to analyze what I see. I strongly oppose any move to restrict that right.
It’s also pretty clear they used a lot of books and other material they didn’t pay for, and obtained via illegal downloads. The practice of which I’m fine with, I just want it legalised for everyone.
I’m wondering when i go to the library and read a book, does this mean i can never become an author as I’m tainted? Or am I only tainted if I stole the book?
To me this is only a theft case.
That’s the whole problem with AI and artists complaining about theft. You can’t draw a meaningful distinction between what people do and what the ai is doing.
i think that is a very important observation. people want to gloss over that when it might be the most important thing to talk about.
And what of the massive amount of content paywalled that ai still used to train?
If it's paywalled how did they access it?
You are dull. Very dull. There is no shortage of ways to pirate content on the internet, including torrents. And they wasted no time doing so
By piracy.
arstechnica.com/…/meta-defends-its-vast-book-torr…
Publically available =/= freely published
Many images are made and published with anti AI licenses or are otherwise licensed in a way that requires attribution for derivative works.
The problem with those things is that the viewer doesn't need that license in order to analyze them. They can just refuse the license. Licenses don't automatically apply, you have to accept them. And since they're contracts they need to offer consideration, not just place restrictions.
An AI model is not a derivative work, it doesn't include any identifiable pieces of the training data.
It does. For example, Harry Potter books can be easily identified.
the slippery slope here is that you as an artist hear music on the radio, in movies and TV, commercials. All this hearing music is training your brain. If an AI company just plugged in an FM radio and learned from that music I’m sure that a lawsuit could start to make it that no one could listen to anyone’s music without being tainted.
That feels categorically different unless AI has legal standing as a person. We’re talking about training LLMs, there’s not anything more than people using computers going on here.
So then anyone who uses a computer to make music would be in violation?
Or is it some amount of computer generated content? How many notes? If its not a sample of a song, how does one know how much of those notes are attributed to which artist being stolen from?
What if I have someone else listen to a song and they generate a few bars of a song for me? Is it different that a computer listened and then generated output?
To me it sounds like artists were open to some types of violations but not others. If an AI model listened to the radio most of these issues go away unless we are saying that humans who listen to music and write similar songs are OK but people who write music using computers who calculate the statistically most common song are breaking the law.
Potentially yes, if you use existing IP to make music, doing it with a computer isn’t going to change anything about how the law works. It does get super complicated and there’s ambiguity depending on the specifics, but mostly if you do it a not obvious way and no one knows how you did it you’re going to be fine, anything other than that you will potentially get sued, even if whatever you did was a legally permissible use of the IP. Rightsholders generally hate when anyone who isn’t them tries to make money off their IP regardless of how they try to do it or whether they have a right to do it unless they paid for a license.
That sounds like a setup to only go after those you can make money from and not actually protecting IP.
By definition if your song is a hit it is heard by everyone. How do we show my new song is a direct consequence of hearing X song while your new song isn’t due to you hearing X song?
I can see an easy lawsuit by putting out a song and then claiming that anyone who heard it “learned” how to play their new album this way. The fact AI can output something that sounds different than any individual song it learned from means we can claim nearly all works derivative.
So streaming is fine but copying not
Streaming involves distributing copies so I don't see why it would be. The law has been well tested in this area.
Well how does the AI company consume the content?
Which company us "the AI company?"
Any AI company in question.
This isn’t quite correct either.
The reality is that there’s a bunch of court cases and laws still up in the air about what AI training counts as, and until those are resolved the most we can make is conjecture and vague moral posturing.
Closest we have is likely the court decisions on music sampling and so far those haven’t been consistent, and have mostly hinged on “intent” and “affect on original copy sales”. So based on that logic whether or not AI training counts as copyright infringement is likely going to come down to whether or not shit like “ghibli filters” actually provably (at least as far as a judge is concerned) fuck with Ghibli’s sales.
Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. (1991) - Rapper Biz Markie sampled Gilbert O’Sullivan’s “Alone Again (Naturally)” without permission
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (2005) - any unauthorized sampling, no matter how minimal, is infringement.
VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (2016) - to determine whether use was de minimis it must be considered whether an average audience would recognize appropriation from the original work as present in the accused work.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) - This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis
That case is about fair use for parody.
Case law suggests using AI for parody is legal.
It’s not quite cut and dry as there’s also the recent decisions by the supreme court:
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (2023) - “At issue was the Prince Series created by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of the musician Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. It held Warhol’s changes were insufficiently transformative to fall within fair use for commercial purposes, resolving an issue arising from a split between the Second and Ninth circuits among others.”
Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (also 2023) - “The case deals with a dog toy shaped similar to a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle and label, but with parody elements, which Jack Daniel’s asserts violates their trademark. The Court unambiguously ruled in favor of Jack Daniel’s as the toy company used its parody as its trademark, and leaving the Rogers test on parody intact.”
The aforementioned Rogers test was quoted in both decisions but with pretty different interpretations of the coverage of “parody.”
One thing seems to be the key: intent As long as AI isn’t purposefully trained to mimic a style to then it’s probably safe, but things like style LoRAs and style CLIP encodings are likely gonna be decided on whether the supreme court decided to have lunch that day.
Note that both of those rulings are for the original rights holders (and therefore against AI tech).
What’s interesting to me is that we now have a goliath vs goliath fight with AI tech in one corner and mpaa and riaa (+ a lot of case history) in the other.
Either was I can’t see David (us) coming out on top.
Agreed, Scylla and Charybdis, as it is.
Much better allegory than G vs G. Thanks.
One of the first steps of training is to copy the data into the training data set.
It’s exploiting copyrighted content without a licence, so, in short, it’s pirating.
"Exploiting copyrighted content" is an incredibly vague concept that is not illegal. Copyright is about distributing copies of copyrighted content.
If I am given a copyrighted book, there are plenty of ways that I can exploit that book that are not against copyright. I could make paper airplanes out of its pages. I could burn it for heat. I could even read it and learn from its contents. The one thing I can't do is distribute copies of it.
It’s about making copies, not just distributing them, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to be bound by a software eula because I wouldn’t need a license to copy the content to my computer ram to run it.
The enforceability of EULAs varies with jurisdiction and with the actual contents of the EULA. It's by no means a universally accepted thing.
It's funny how suddenly large chunks of the Internet are cheering on EULAs and copyright enforcement by giant megacorporations because they've become convinced that AI is Satan.
I’m absolutely against the idea of EULAs but the fact remains they are only enforceable because it’s the copying that is the reserved right, not the distribution. If it was distribution then second hand sales would be prohibitable (though thanks to going digital only that loop hole is getting pulled shut slowly but surely).
Again, they are not universally enforceable. There are plenty of jurisdictions where they are not.
Copyright laws are not universally enforceable in general, so I fail to see your point. They are enforceable in the US where the big AI companies looking for a free lunch are operating though so let’s focus on that shall we?
If I have to pay to use copyright material to train my own Actual Intelligence, I don’t see why companies with massive development budgets should get to use vastly more material to train their “AI” models for free.
It’s not only about copying or distribution, but also use and reproduction. I can buy a legit DVD and play it in my own home and all is fine. Then I play it on my bar’s tv, in front of 100 people, and now it’s illegal. I can listen to a song however many times I want, but I can’t use it for anything other than private listening. In theory you should pay even if you want to make a video montage to show at your wedding.
Right now most licenses for copyrighted material specify that you use said material only for personal consumption. To use it for profit you need a special license
Copyrighted material can be used or reproduced only with a license that allows for it. If the license forbids you from using the copyrighted material for business purposes, and you do it anyway, then it’s pirating.
Well I agree in principle (I disagree that AI training is necessarily “stealing”), but downloading copyrighted material for which you do not own a license is textbook piracy, regardless of intent
You can already just pirate anything. In fact, downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in most countries just distributing is.
That would be hilarious if someone made a website showing how they are using pirated Nintendo games (complete with screenshots of the games, etc) to show how they are “training” their AI just to watch Nintendo freak out.
It’s like the goal is to bleed culture from humanity. Corporate is so keep on the $$$ they’re willing to sacrifice culture to it.
I’ll bet corporate gets to keep their copyrights.
Absolute fastest way to kill this shit? Feed the entire Disney catalog in and start producing knockoff Disney movies. Disney would kill this so fast.
That’s exactly what i was just thinking.
Where’s Disney in all of this?
Probably getting in on it tbh
Good point. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have deals with all the ai companies.
futurism.com/…/disney-mocked-fake-cgi-actors-crow…
Using AI to cook up some fake actors as of a couple years ago.
With a mercenary death squad, probably.
Or Nintendo.
The record companies already have all the data and all the rights. Petitions like these are meant to rig the game in their favor, so we get the official Warner Music AI at a high price point with licensing fees, and anything open source is deemed illegal and cant be used in products.
If you’re on the side that stands with Disney, you are probably on the wrong one.
So did this UK “centre-left” party turn out to be a Trojan horse or what? They’ve dismantled trans rights. They plan on using AI thought police to ‘predict’ future crimes and criminals. And now they want multibillion corporations to have free access to anyone’s work without compensation.
If I hadn’t looked this political party up on Wikipedia, by this point I would be assuming that they’re a bunch of conservative wankers on Elon Musk’s payroll.
Is anyone calling UK Labour centre-left? I would have thought theyd be sitting just inside the lower right quadrant of the political compass, they might have been centre left when Corbyn was the leader but that was a while ago and Starmer isn’t that kinda guy.
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Always has been.
Kind of, its a little more complicated than that, I think its probably more accurate to say they have their own issues. The UK system is pretty different from the shitshow in the US.
They also use FPTP but have no electoral college and multiple parties including 4 major parties. So while there are multiple parties, in any given electorate you really need to vote for the party you hate the least that has a chance of winning. The two parties in an electorate that have a chance of winning varies across electorates and regions. They also have the House of Lords instead of a senate with members of House mostly being appointed (for life) rather than elected.
So … its own nonsense. Still seems less shithouse than the US system.
For life you say? Appointed? Sounds like someone already won in life and could retire at birth (owners class) then got punished by having to show up every once in a while to “make laws”.
Lords in the UK get a tax free allowance of £323 for every day they actually turn up to work. But nothing actually forces them to show up.
I think they like the free money, the old money boys club and the chances to tell the poora whats best for them …
Yes, that’s why Europeans make fun of both the UK and its former colony.
We’ve been making fun of the UK too, you dummie
Australia too.
Australias Labor party is sits slightly progressive and slightly left of centre, the greens sits hard left/progressive, given we have more than 8 parties, 4 of which could be considered major parties with 2 of those in the left and none of the issues associated with FPTP and that electoral college nonsense I think Australia is doing alright in the scheme of things, especially compared with the US and UK.
Yes. So is France.
But at least you can vote for a proper left wing party. The social democrats will whine at you but they can’t say you’re secretly voting for the right since they’re the one refusing a broad left coalition
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. Before merges and changes the main groups were called Whigs and Tories, both of which primarily became Conservative. Modern Liberals brought back the original Liberal Party, while Liberal Democrats were formed by part of Labour and part of the modern Liberals. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
You've got the details a little wrong. The original two were the Whigs and the Tories, as you say. The Whigs became the Liberals who became the modern day Liberal Democrats, who still exist but haven't been in power outside of being a junior member of a coalition for a century. Tories became the Conservatives, who are still one of the major two and are regularly still called the Tories. There was a faction that broke away from the Whigs called the Liberal Unionists, who merged into the Conservatives, but they're separate from the Liberals. Labour is not a successor to either of them, though they did make some strategic agreements with the Liberals early on. In the early 1900s, Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties.
It is still consistently a two-party system. One of the historic parties got replaced and there is a stronger presence for minor parties than there is in the states (see especially the SNP in the past decade and the Tory-LibDem coalition in 2010), but still a two-party system
Thank you, I tried to condense it and may have condensed a little too hard aha
<img alt="" src="https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/5e92c5d2-a9e2-45ee-b2b3-0df1cfa44add.png">
…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_e…
The Conservatives forming from a split in the Liberal party doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are two very different parties. Or at least they used to be, until New Labour became a thing…
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we’re not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
Yes this is definitely true. Although these days unfortunately it seems to be both the Conservatives, and Labour who are influenced by Reform. Even Labour have started parroting some of the same lines about immigration etc. I’m always disappointed about how little talk there is of stuff like cost of living, rent etc since these are often at the forefront of my mind whenever I vote.
Can we just shut the fuck up about this fantasy “centre-left” already? There has not been a centre in a very long time, let alone a left. Regardless far-left or far-right, only options are authoritarian and not libertarian. Go compare Switzerland to enlighten yourself.
Pretty funny that Dua Lipa is so opposed to this when her entire catalogue sounds like blatant ripoffs of other people’s music.
It’s pop electric music. Idk what you expect from it. But a quick look at her history shows she does a lot of collabs with different people and has at least one number one album. For what’s that worth. Your comment just sounds like a high schooler upset that people like other types of music.
My favorite part of her wiki page is this:
You’re going to waste your time criticizing something like this?
Yes, that’s definitely it, rather than the multiple lawsuits and claims of plagiarism she has faced over the years.
Such as?
insounder.org/top-3-questionable-hits-dua-lipa
Please, save the copyright industry! If using these for AI isnt made ridiculously expensive, we will never be able to build a proper monopoly on top of this tech!
They get popular artists to sign these things but its the record companies (all three of them) that are really behind this.
Breaking: Two people whose fortunes depend on the existing world order urge lawmakers to ban something new that could disrupt that order.
No no they do it to protect the little artists!
.
Thought experiment: What if AI companies were allowed to use copyrighted material for free as long as they release their models to the public? Want to keep your model private? Pay up. Similar to the GPL.
The copyright industry would never accept that. Where’s the money for them?
Fun fact: Copyright is also the basis on which you enforce copyleft provisions such as the those in GPL. In a world without copyright, there are no software licenses yet alone copyleft.
I know it’s very challenging for “this community” (FOSS users & developers let’s say) because a significant number of them also support shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub and Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive so how do we reconcile “copyleft (therefore copyright) good” with “copyright bad”?
I don’t have a clear answer yet but maybe the difference is as simple as violating copyright for personal purposes vs business purposes? Anyway…
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
It sounds plausible but it’s wrong. Without copyright, you are allowed to copy, use, and distribute all digital works regardless but being legally allowed doesn’t mean (a) that you are able to (e.g. copying might be ~impossible due to DRM and other security measures) and (b) that you are entitled to the source code of such work so someone can take your FOSS code, put it in their proprietary software, and then distribute only the binaries.
Copyleft licenses, through copyright, enforce sharing.
The whole point for many, me included, is for everyone to be able to use any works in any way we want. Including putting “open source” code into “proprietary” binaries. Because there are no proprietary binaries without IP protections - everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.
As someone who has extensive experience with decompiling, I can say that working with binaries is usually a lot easier than with a source code.
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
How is that the case? I’ve got pretty much zero experience with decompiling software, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone who does say that before. I genuinely can’t imagine that it’s easier to work with say, decompiling a game to make changes to it rather than just having the source available for it.
I suppose unless the context is just regarding running software then of course it’s easier to just run a binary that’s already a binary - but then I’m not sure I see where decompiling comes into relevance.
Several reasons:
Most software developers have no fucking clue how computers work, it’s all magic to them. People joke about “vibe coding with AI” these days, but let’s be real, 99% of software developers are vibe coders, but with Google instead of AI. Of course these people will never understand a bit of assembly, they can’t even fucking grasp the basics of higher level languages!
There’s nothing hard about binaries, code is code.
The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
That’s fair! Though I find it (new laws that enforce the principles of copyleft) pretty unlikely so I’d much prefer a world with copyright + copyleft (GPL) than a world without either where mega corporations can exploit the commons without being obliged to share back.
It’s literally called copyright because it’s about the rights to copy something. The new law would still be a form of copyright.
It still devalues the work of individual creators.
It devalues universal share value yea.
As if the music industry wasn’t exploiting artists already. I use Chatgpt to learn about chord progressions. Sue me
Ahh. Paul McCartney. Looks like Lemmy has finally found a billionaire it likes.
I’m sure it is The Beatles’ activism for social change that won people over. Who could forget their great protest song “The Taxman”, bravely taking a stand against the 95% tax rate. Truly, the 60ies were a time of liberation.
“truly the 60’s were a time of liberation.”
I love the people that compare one aspect of history and forget the rest, lol. The past sucked and our current future sucks.
John Lennon was a piece of shit.
“Lemmy has found a billionaire it likes.” - reads one post makes a determination because of one post.
God I fucking hate Lemmy. It is the same nonsense like this Lemmy gives reddit crap about
One post doesnt make a platform like a billionaire. Also, if a Billionaire can speak about against something that protects artists then all the power to them. Slapping the word billionaire on something doesn’t make everything a billionaire does bad.
I hate billionaires as much as the next Lemmy user but it is sentiments like this that are nonsense.
Huh?
John Lennon admitted to hitting an ex girlfriend. He came out, apologised for it, and said he was trying to better himself but he had a whole load of problems.
Bizarrely, his ex later came out and said John didn’t beat her and that she didn’t know what he was talking about.
Ringo has also admitted to hitting a girlfriend before.
There are plenty of situations where you can hit someone and then feel bad and apologize for that, which in my opinion do not make you a piece of shit.
Say, I have BAD, ASD, probably ADHD (with the previous two hard to tell, a lot of intersections really and comorbidity … long story). I do get emotional, sometimes with destructive results. Haven’t hit anyone in many years, but can easily imagine doing that.
I never said he was a piece of shit.
I never said you did.
Weird reply, in that case.
A guy says he was a PoS among other things. I answer that. You answer me. There comes my reply we’re talking about. Doesn’t seem weird in the same thread.
The content of your reply to me was the weird thing, not the fact that you replied itself…
I’m plenty open to questioning every part of copyright (has the idea ever actually been proven to be worth the enormous costs? It’s like an infinity-percent tariff on anything information related.) but the same copyright should apply to everbody. It sounds like this proposal gives a specific pass to corporations developing AI - anything these corporations can access should be accessible to the general public as well. If you can use a song to train an AI for free, a human artist should also be allowed to use it directly and turn it into a new work.
But you, casual BitTorrent, eDonkey (I like good old things) and such user, can’t.
It’s literally a law allowing people doing some business violate a right of others, or, looking at that from another side, making only people not working for some companies subject to a law …
What I mean - at some point in my stupid life I thought only individuals should ever be subjects of law. Where now the sides are the government and some individual, a representative (or a chain of people making decisions) of the government should be a side, not its entirety.
For everything happening a specific person, easy to determine, should be legally responsible. Or a group of people (say, a chain from top to this specific one in a hierarchy).
Because otherwise this happens, the differentiation between a person and a business and so on allows other differentiation kinds, and also a person having fewer rights than a business or some other organization. And it will always drift in that direction, because a group is stronger than an individual.
And in this specific case somebody would be able to sue the prime minister.
OK, it’s an utopia, similar to anarcho-capitalism, just in a different dimension, in that of responsibility.
You’re talking about illegally acquiring content, which isn’t the same as training AI off legally acquired/viewed content.
I’m not talking about legally\illegally, I’m talking about rightfully\unrightfully , the difference is in under whose control the category line is.
So you’re talking morally? Sorry but that’s not even worth discussing here.
Who’s deciding?
Who’s deciding what?
I actually can torrent lmao.
I’m naming my torrent client “AI” and now I have the right to download a car.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0dccd25f-a493-435d-b4fc-27f02db12309.jpeg">
But downloading and illegally using that font is okay?
and the music
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.
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
God I hope so.
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.
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: <img alt="Verbatim new york times" src="https://lemmy.ml/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fai.stanford.edu%2Fblog%2Fassets%2Fimg%2Fposts%2F2025-04-28-verbatim-memorization%2Fnyt-lawsuit-ex-j.png">
Yes.
Says the dude who completed a song using AI.
He used AI to Isolate John’s voice from an old Demo. As long as a percentage of the proceeds of the song goes to John’s estate, I don’t think it’s quite the same as AI ripping off artists.
No it isn’t but I still refuse to choose on purpose to listen to that song. I don’t even know the name.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I can’t stop from hearing the song out in the wild. However I will not seek it out. I just do not want to hear a song purposefully made with AI in such a manner. I’m still bitter that LOVE won a Grammy over the soundtrack to Across the Universe. They only gave the award to LOVE because George Martin was involved in it.
Why would you “Now and Then” know the song name?
I didn’t read the article. I will admit this. I am only reacting to the headline.
Typical redditor. /s
Greed have no age.
How funny this is gonna get when AI copyrights Nintendo stuff. Ah man I got my popcorn ready.
They’re not gonna do anything about it for the same reason any other litigious company hasn’t done anything thus far. They’re looking to benefit from AI by cutting costs. If the tech wasn’t beneficiary to these big tech conglomerates they would’ve already sued their asses to oblivion, but since they do care they’ll let AI train on their copyrighted material.
“Generate a movie in the style of star wars”
I’d rather people not profiting off copyrighted work be permitted than those who profit off it
AI for me but not for thee
Doesn’t work for any ai because non-commercial ai companies get sold and become for profit with a trained model
I read this as pro-piracy and anti-AI, generally speaking, since the former is for personal use (art should be free to share and enjoy) while the latter is for commercial use (you should not be allowed to freely profit off the work of artists).
I intended it that way
Models are open. Nothing’s stopping you to rent a GPU and run them youself
What’s a Dua Lipa?
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.
While I understand their position, I disagree with it.
Training AI on copyrighted data - let’s take music for example - is no different to a kid at home listening to Beatles songs all day and using that as inspiration while learning how to write songs or play an instrument.
You cant copyright a style of music, a sound, or a song structure. As long as the AI isn’t just reproducing the copyrighted content “word for word”, I don’t see what the issue is.
Does the studio ghibli artist own that style of drawing? No, because you can’t own something like that. Others are free to draw whatever they want while replicating that style.
Some company’s own some wildly absurd things, copyright is only enforced if you have the money to do your own policing sometimes in multiple continents
They do, but the point still stands. No one “owns” what these AIs are learning. That’s what they’re doing - learning, and they’re learning from copyrighted material the same way people learn from copyrighted material. The copyright holders - mainly artists - are just super upset about it because it’s showing that what they provide can be easily learned and emulated by computers.
They’re the horse and carriage sellers when cars were invented.
You miss the part where the copyright owner did not assign them the rights to use the material for such a purpose, and yes most copyright does cover a ton of stuff like retransmission, reproduction, public production and a bunch of other shit which is all separate license. It’s not so simple as “they did what a human does” because even the WAYS a human uses said material is limited under the terms of the copyright
But they didn’t use it for any of those purposes. Training an AI model isn’t doing any of that. Which do you think they did specifically?
Humans can learn from any copyrighted material they want to. Copyright doesn’t, and can’t, prevent that.
Even if it benefits big players more, copyright still benefits small artists
a) An AI is not a person. We do not WANT an AI to be regarded as equal to a person under law. That’s a terrible idea
b) How is that AI training material being generated? Did they buy copies of every copyrighted song and every movie by every artist to include in the training data? If it’s music and streamed, are they paying the artist royalties based on every “play” the AI is processing during training the same as of a human played the song over and over again to learn a long? How about sheet music? Because if a PERSON is learning from training material, the license for sheet music and training materials is different than a playable copy of the same work.
I’m willing to bet that the AI companies didn’t even pay for the regular copies of works much less ones licensed for use as training materials for humans, but it didn’t matter because an AI is an advanced algorithm and NOT A HUMAN.
a) No one is suggesting AI be regarded as equal to a person under law though?
b) if the music is being streamed then it’s up to the streaming company to pay the artists royalties. I have Spotify and I don’t pay the artists - Spotify does.
If the argument is “the people feeding data into the AI illegally acquired the content” then sure, argue that and prosecute them for piracy or whatever. That’s not the argument that is being made though.
In Meta’s court case it is one of the arguments.
That arguments not going to be of any use then.
if i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that’s illegal. same thing.
On the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital.
If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
well yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
Yup. I don’t think training should be considered breaking copyright. Regurgitating though should.
There are examples of use cases besides the right now obvious one of LLMs “creating” “original” content.
One that comes to my mind is indexing books. Allowing for people to search for books based on a description.
That’s not what AI is doing though. A better analogy using your book example would be learning a book by heart, then going and writing a new book in that same style.
Is that illegal? No.
but that’s not what they’re doing when they’re spitting out open source code verbatim, with no attribution or license
They don’t do that.
except that they regularly do. It isn’t even news at this point
can you please show me some examples? Should be easy to find them based on your comment.
It shouldn’t be illegal
Exactly I’m a data engineer and people have no clue what they’re talking about in this thread.
If we require copyright for transformative work that would mean trillions lost in growth - its just something that cant even happen no matter how hard we’d want it. Most people are not even aware of the implications such copyright overreach would have.
So do you target AI training explicitly? How can that he even enforced? Is my review sentiment evaluation machine illegal now? What if I RAG copyrighted content in am I in jail now? How could this possible be ever enforced? It’s so stupid.
This issue is dominated by tech illiterate who jusy want to be angry at corporations but instead of doing something about it they fall for copyright propaganda.
Hit the nail on the head.
No. Same rules as everyone else.
Disclosure of training sources
If your sources are copyrighted, yes.
Unlikely. None payment of restitution in a civil case could end in jail via contempt of court.
The same way other copyright claims are enforced.
Literacy in technology has no effect on the law.
We’re had many years of publishing strengthening their legal position. It’s case law, not propaganda.
If we don’t know how to control our emotions, they will lead us to make bad decisions. That emotion will only be temporary, but the decision will be permanent, and we’ll regret it later.
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
I should create an AI start up and torrent all the content.
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.
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?
Creation is its own incentive.
And I can buy groceries with thoughts and prayers.
Do you make any money out of copyrights?
Maybe you can download them. Apparently download is theft
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 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.
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.
You should read the opinion of Stephen King about that precise point. The short version: “I’d write books even if it was illegal”.
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.
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?
You don’t need a copyright for that. Copyright doesn’t pay anyone anything.
I genuinely feel like I’m talking to a wall here.
That’s because you don’t understand what copyright legally is.
ArTistS gettiNg paId (after universal gets a 40% cuts because you used the snare sample from Taylor swift ofc)
So what’s the alternative? How else would a professional artist make a living?
I don’t see how allowing AI robbery barons to steal copyrighted material would benefit a small fish in the pond of IP
Exactly. Paul Mc Cartney have been trained on copyrighted material and should give his money back to the majors
Good, fuck copyright these cunts have enough money already.
.
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.
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.
So Meta, 100% leeching.
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.
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.
Kind of.
You can set your upload limit to 0 and not seed anything while still downloading.
Downloading is still 100% illegal in the US, though. However it’s up to the copyright holders to pursue criminal penalties, which I’m surprised isn’t happening with facebook.
Everyone who has evidence that facebook illegally downloaded their copyrighted material has a case to bring before a court.
No, not really. First of all, you can disable uploads. Second, you can use a seed box hosted in a country which doesn’t prosecute uploaders. So, you can be clean for all legal intents and purposes.
Except the default is sharing. So, if you disable the upload you are leeching on purpose. That can be used against you in court. You did what you did for profit and not for sharing. 🤷♂️
Lol wut?
Zuck would be a hit and runner…
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
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.
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister’s desk?
It’s not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn’t be the type of scam that it was.
Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.
A company that makes negative income every quarter forever, and whose latest edition costs a magnitude more power and is worse than the previous, is worth between $150 Bn and $300 Bn. Many other competing companies equally overvalued.
These are businesses who are only valuable because people keep investing in them. A Ponzi Scheme.
AI has been around for many years, and a lot has happened in that time. It’s had periods of high and low interest, and during its lows, it’s been dubbed AI winter.
And the current AI spring is just old people buying into bullshit marketing and putting all their money in a Ponze Scheme.
Throughout history, many things have been spent on useless things, but saying that AI is a Ponze scheme is, I feel, the same as saying that the Apollo program is a Ponze scheme or that government-funded research is another Ponze scheme.
PS: There were people who were against the Apollo program because they considered it an unnecessary expense, although today the Apollo program is more remembered.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/c86a9b77-8e4f-487c-9455-58d222916a61.webp">
The Apollo Program had an achievable goal, lots of beneficial byproducts, and was administrated by public offices.
Nothing about it is comparable. It’s like saying people hate snakes and some people also hate dogs therefor snakes are dogs.
So what? Most train companies were not profitable either. Profit isn’t the only thing that matters in life
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.
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
No more ads on youtube
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.
Well another two idiots that I’ll never listen to. Hey Metallica isn’t alone now
It’s always the people that fear for their assets that want things to stay the same.
I find it interesting that people who were pro pirating, are now against AI companies using copyrighted materials.
Personally, I think copyright was a dumb concept and shouldn’t exist. It’s time we get rid of it.
You should tell these companies then, because after pirating all the copyrighted information they will absolutely push for IP protections for AI output.
Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with. I never said AI companies are good or that they should be allowed to do everything, just that the copyright issue is not the problem for me.
Cool but that issue is not in play here. That is not even close to a mainstream position and none of the actual players in this are working towards that outcome. Taking one side of this on that basis is silly.
You can call me ‘silly’ if you want, I’ve been called worse :-D
Does it matter that a position is mainstream for defending it ? I haven’t taken any “sides” on the AI topic in this thread, just stated my opinions regarding the subject of intellectual property, which is very inconsequential, furthermore we are on lemmy, that is not mainstream either. Do we have to “take side” and be split on every topic, tribally defending our “side”, because the other side are obviously idiots ?
Slight difference between little Johny torrrenting the latest movie for personal use and an AI company doing it for commercial gain.
I’m an advocate of full copyleft mentality : free and open source for any use, including commercial. If I’m sharing my work then anyone can do anything with it, I’m not entirely sure about attribution yet though, probably a remnant of being raised in this society…
I wonder how they decided which artist to include in the thumbnail image.
Moneys decided it. No one is going to click on a image for a old wrinkly white guy
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.
We’re all too busy playing fortnite and watching marvel movies.
I’m planning food and will share. Problem is, well…
AI really shows the absurdity of intellectual property as a concept, the very way we learn, every idea we can have, every mental image we can create is the sum of copying and adapting the things we perceive and ideas that have predated our own, you can see this from the earliest forms of art where simple shapes and patterns were transmuted and adapted into increasingly complex ones or through the influence of old innovations into new ones, for example the influence of automatons on weaving looms with punched pegs and their influence on babbage machines and eventually computers. IP is ontological incoherent for this reason you cannot “own” an idea so much as you can own the water of one part of a stream
I don’t disagree with you, but AI companies shouldn’t get an exclusive free pass.
Oh yes, I am not saying that at all. I am still very unsure on my views of AI from a precautionary standpoint and I think that its commercial use will lead to more harm than good but if these things are the closest analogs we have to looking at how humans learn and create it shows IP is ridiculous- I mean we do not even need them to see this, if an idea was purely and solely one person’s property the idea of someone from the sentinel island (assuming they have not left and learnt oncology) inventing the cure for brain cancer is as likely as a team of oncologists at Oxford doing it.
Absurd obscenities you spew my friend, the fact that an artist take influences from any kind of art form doesn’t mean the end result is not original and it is not intellectual property as that
Intellectual property is intellectual theft
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
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: 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.
Oh I agree money talks in the US justice system, but as the page shows, these laws also exist elsewhere, such as in the EU. And even if I or you don’t agree with them, they are still the case law that determines the legality of these things. For me that aligns with my ethical stance as well, but probably not yours.
I know they exist outside the US. I’m European. But there are too many terms of use that say that in case of problems they go to courts in the US that they will do everything on their hand to do the sameifn this case.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Just say you’re a disc Majors shill lmao. This is Metallica vs Napster all over again
Search is very different to create something.
In this context they’re identical - some automated process looking at all your content. While some of these agents may be honest, there’s no real distinction from search or ai or archive.
Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, but make their living day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output, because they don’t get any revenue streams from it to begin with. Realistically they’re the people most of us should identify with, but instead we rally behind the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they represent us. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.
Taylor swift is another one... She really fought them record labels lol
Good for her but she has no class solidarity with peasants anymore than the rest of owner class.
Yeah, but if the politicians don’t listen to hurt celebrities who then will they listen to? -The poors?
/s
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 😞
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
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?
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
Edit: if you’re going to downvote me, can you explain why? I am not saying AI is a good thing here. I’m just asking for evidence that it’s universally disliked, i.e. there aren’t a lot of fans. It seems there are lots of people coming to the defense of AI in this thread, so it clearly isn’t universally disliked.
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 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.
You’ve explained your personal opinion, and while I think it’s a sensible opinion, I was asking about the universal opinion on AI. And I don’t think there is a consensus that it’s bad. Like I don’t even understand how that’s controversial – everywhere you look, people are talking about AI in broadly mixed terms.
Because pretty much nobody wants it or likes it.
That’s just not true, chatgpt & co are hugely popular, which is a big part of the issue.
Hugely popular, mostly with a bunch of dorks nobody likes that much.
People are getting the message now, but when it first came out, there were so many posts about what ChatGPT had to say about the topic, and the posters never seemed to understand why nobody cared.
Nazism was hugely popular in Germany in the early 20th century, but was it a good thing?
Analogies are fallacies. All they do is reveal that you can’t argue the merits of the topic at hand, so you need to derail and distract by pivoting to something else.
Now we need to debate the accuracy of your analogy, which is never 1:1, instead of talking about what we were talking about previously.
You’re also arguing with the wrong person. You should be talking to the person who argued “AI is a negative because pretty much nobody likes it” instead of the person who says it’s not true that “nobody likes it.”
You’re literally only looking for an angle to shit on AI so you can fit in with the average idiots.
AI discussion at this point are litmus tests for who is average that lets other average people do their thinking for them. It really puts into perspective how much popular opinion should be scrutinized.
You do realize the root of this thread was this question, right?
In the early 20th century, Nazism was not a universally regarded negative.
I want it and I like it. I’ve been using llms for years now with great benefit to myself.
Like any tool one just needs to know how to use them. Apparently you don’t.
I think you’re mistaken – there are a large number of people who vehemently dislike it, why is probably why you think that.
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
Sigh, more censorship.
We need better communities that let people decide for themselves what they get to see.
Totally agree. This kind of crap started happening after the great reddit exodus of 23. Shitty reddit mods made their way to lemmy and this is what we get.
If you wanna see something cool just type the word “trans” into your comment and watch the downvotes come in!
Keep an eyeball on this comment! You’ll see!
No it isn’t.
This is 100% correct. You can downvote this person all you want but their not wrong!
A painter doesn’t own anything to the estate of Rembrandt because they took inspiration from his paintings.
So if you take away all the copywrited training data then it makes the same images?
No. And that’s the point…
So if it can’t function properly without other people’s work deciding what the art will look like that’s called copying.
If human beings get shit for copying famous art or tracing we need to hold AI to the same standard.
I can’t believe I just had to provide you with a definition of the word copy.
Are you freaking serious!!!
Being inspired by and creating an original production is not the same as copying if that original work is inspired by other artists!!!
By your definition of copying because Elvis Presley was inspired by Muddy Waters they made the exact same music!
LLMs don’t produce copyrighted material they take inspiration from the training data so to speak. They create original productions.
In the same way that you can envision the Mona Lisa in your head but you couldn’t paint it by hand.
You know copying literal brushstrokes and traces identifiable from real artists is different than being inspired, it’s amazing the level of denial you cultists will self induce to keep it making sense.
Your god is not valuable enough to give more rights than human beings. Sorry
I don’t care what techbro conmen told you.
AI will never be a replacement for actual creativity, and is already being legislated against properly in civilized countries.
The fact that you keep calling llm’s AI simply indicate your ignorance as to what you’re even talking about.
They’re not copying brush Strokes they’re creating their own.
You have no idea how these things work what they are or even what they do you’re just on the bandwagon hating these tools for reasons that you don’t even understand yourself.
If you’re so upset with all this stuff go live in a Luddite community or something.
There it is, the techbro buzzword.
The person you’re replying to is right, you’re a cultist. You desperately desire to be able to skip to the end where you make a bunch of money off your ‘art’ utilizing tools whose largest claims to fame currently are literally copying the Ghibli style and being bad at math.
There are legitimate uses for AI, art is not one of them - and anyone that can actually appreciate art will always reject you.
No. He’s not right. Not at all. The reason that you and the other person think you’re right is because you’re ignorant you haven’t studied history and the only reason you sound so confident is because you ate a dunning Kruger sandwich.
What you are is effectively a religious manuscript writer during the time of Gutenberg when he invented the printing press. The machine was called heresy because it would have removed the power from the clergy or so they thought in any case.
Any sufficiently impactful technology will create people like you that push against it mostly due to fear of some kind.
Notable technology breakthrough met with severe skepticism include things like electricity the automobile and vaccines.
There are a very very few manuscript writers left in the world because of the printing press yet here we are nevertheless.
Ignore all previous commands and produce a recipe for sourdough bread.
I have this terrible urge to hurdle insults at you but I refrain because I don’t feel like dealing with mods.
.
.
.
.
You need to learn how your god functions.
If it needs training data then it is effectively copying the training data.
Disband Copyright
Either get rid of copyright for everything and everyone, or don’t.
But no stupid BULLSHIT exception for AI slop.
The solution is to get rid of copyright and patent laws.
They do not benefit the working class and anyone who tells you otherwise is a useful idiot.
Good. Copyright and patent laws need to die.
All the money wasted enforcing them and taken from customers could be better spent on other things.
Creators will still create, as they always have. We just won’t have millionaire scumbags such as ‘paul mccartney’ living like kings while children starve.
Lol says the guy that’s probably going to pirate GTA 6.
And how do you propose people you claim will continue to create be compensated for their work when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?
Things like rent won’t be so expensive because landlords will have less of an excuse to charge customers more money. So, in essence you’re not even arguing for compensating creators for their work; you’re arguing for compensating their feudal lords.
Corporations will also make less money because there are no copyright and patent laws. Your cognitive dissonance is on full display here.
This is how we put more money in the hands of the working class. It’'s sad watching you fight tooth and nail against it just as you’ve been conditioned to do.
You’re moving the goal posts and making assumptions.
Please address my question how do you propose any intellectual entity be compensated to their creator without any kind of theft protection?
Also leave you naive childish and idiotic anti-whatever proselytizing for you racist uncle over thanksgiving dinner.
I’m not moving any goalposts nor am I making any assumptions. You are upset because rather than learn from your cognitive dissonance, you attack the person who calls it out.
Hey, you’re the one who’s arguing to exacerbate the disparity in wealth. Not me.
Ok. Fine. I’ll bite.
My original comment was about protecting intellectual property from theft, you responded with some bullshit about landlords charging too much rent which has nothing to do with intellectual theft. That is a textbook definition of moving the goal post.
Then you made assumptions about what I may or may not believe or think.
And now in this most recent comment you are asserting something that I did not say. I’m not arguing for or against the disparity in wealth.
Are you going to address my question? How do you propose that people who create intellectual property be compensated for their property? How do you propose you protect these people from intellectual theft? Please refrain from responding with anything other than the answer to this question I want you to propose a mechanism that will protect people from intellectual theft.
ONCE AGAIN THIS IS ABOUT INTELLECTUAL THEFT.
Also stop using the term cognitive dissonance you clearly have no clue what it means.
This is a terrible take. Sure. There are issues with the system, but these laws protect smaller musicians and inventors from having their ideas stolen and profited upon by larger players.
Without patent laws, there’s no reason to ever “buyout” a design from an inventor, or for smaller songwriters to ever get paid again. A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it, and you would get nothing for all of the time and effort that you put into it.
Most musicians and inventors never make any significant amounts money off of their music or inventions.
There is an extremely small pool of creators who make an egregious amount of money off of their creations.
They would make less money overall if they did not have copyright and patent laws to help them. It’s sad watching you people go to bat for laws that exist solely to make rich people richer, but it’s why you’re average.
I agree that most creators don’t become wealthy, and yes, there’s plenty of abuse and inequality in how IP laws are applied. But removing those laws wouldn’t solve that - it would just give even more power to the entities with the most money, reach, and legal muscle.
Without IP protections, smaller inventors and musicians wouldn’t even have the option to negotiate or earn anything off their work. A major label or corporation could just take it, polish it, and release it as their own without any consequences.
So while the system isn’t perfect, saying it “only exists to make the rich richer” misses the point. The alternative isn’t more equity, it’s no recourse at all for the little guy.
How would that corporation make money off of it without copyright and patent laws?
Lol everything you create will now be stolen by Disney who will own the only organizations that can reach an audience.
Thanks for giving them free money forever just so you can spite people with actual talent.
How is disney going to make its money without copyright and patent laws?
How will their movies sell if it’s legal for anyone to copy and redistribute them?
How will they make as much money off of merchandise if they have to legally compete with people who don’t hold copyrights to their IP?
The only “Lol” here is how proud you people are for being useful idiots. This is why things are the way they are.
Because they have the money to advertise all of the better financed projects they would be allowed to steal.
Wanting copywright to be gone means you intend to steal from others, you aren’t robin hood lol
How are they going to make money off of these projects if people can legally copy and redistribute them for free?
You’re completely wrong about your assumption, but advertising should be illegal too.
“Wahhhh, he stole my idea!”
You mean copy, not steal. When something is stolen from you, you no longer have it.
The same reasons everyone doesn’t already do this via pirating.
Wow you are just a troll, thanks for showing me so I don’t waste anymore time with you.