Former Meta exec (Nick Clegg) says asking for artist permission will kill AI industry
(htxt.co.za)
from Pro@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world on 27 May 11:19
https://programming.dev/post/31117310
from Pro@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world on 27 May 11:19
https://programming.dev/post/31117310
- Nick Clegg, former Meta executive and UK Deputy Prime Minister, has reiterated a familiar line when it comes to AI and artist consent.
- He said that any push for consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.
- Clegg added that the sheer volume of data that AI is trained on makes it “implausible” to ask for consent.
threaded - newest
Good, then it should die
The audacity… If our technology isn’t allowed to break the law, it will fail. Therefore we should change the law.
I think the law should be changed; copyright law is kind of a mess, but I don’t know how to make it better. It would also need to be changed in a way that’s fair, which these companies absolutely do not want; fairness would mean the end of laws like the DMCA.
The current system is far from perfect and needs an update but any change in their spirit would make things worse.
The issue is that they want to change the law only for themselves. Distributing a partially reverse-engineered, cleansed from evil, modded and made good version of Windows NT that would give us the feeling of W2K and compatibility with Windows device drivers, for example, they don’t want to make legal.
Generally yes, laws are subject to common sense and are changed when common sense dictates so.
Yes, I know I’m doing something illegal (stealing and reselling IP) but it’s in service of something legal (continuing to be rich). You can’t punish me for doing bad things while rich, it would undermine your entire legal system.
AI is not just limited to these overhyped plagiarism machines. Will consent laws kill vision systems? Will they kill classifiers? Will they kill gradient descent? No, they won’t.
If abiding to the law destroys your business then you are a criminal. Simple as.
But the law is largely the reverse. It only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon.
AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. Setting up barriers like these only benefit the ultra-wealthy and will end with corporations gaining a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive and cumbersome for regular folks. What the people writing this article want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would jeopardize research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.
.
Yeah, anyone who thinks stealing content explicitly for financial gain is fair use needs their head checked.
The fact that this is upvoted is so funny but unsurprising given the types who visit this site
Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use
Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free. “But they spent money and time and resources!” So did everyone who created the stuff they’re using for their training, so they can fuck off.
The article by Tory also says these things:
I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.
You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.
I agree
But 99.9% of the internet is stuff that no one would miss. Things don’t have to have value to you to be worth having around. That trash could serve as inspiration for your 0.1% of people or garner feedback for people to improve.
I don’t really disagree with your other two points, but
They sure do, of which that is not one. That’s de facto copyright infringement or plagiarism. Especially if you then turn around and sell that product.
The key point that is being made is that it you are doing de facto copyright infringement of plagiarism by creating a copy, it shouldn’t matter whether that copy was made though copy paste, re-compressing the same image, or by using AI model. The product being the copy paste operation, the image editor or the AI model here, not the (copyrighted) image itself. You can still sell computers with copy paste (despite some attempts from large copyright holders with DRM), and you can still sell image editors.
However, unlike copy paste and the image editor, the AI model could memorize and emit training data, without the input data implying the copyrighted work. (exclude the case where the image was provided itself, or a highly detailed description describing the work was provided, as in this case it would clearly be the user that is at fault, and intending for this to happen)
At the same time, it should be noted that exact replication of training data isn’t exactly desirable in any case, and online services for image generation could include a image similarity check against training data, and many probably do this already.
The apparent main use for AI thus far is spam and scam, which is what I was thinking about when dismissing most content made with that. While the internet was already chock full of that before AI, its availability is increasing those problems tenfold
Yes, people use it for other things, like “art”, but most people using it for “art” are trying to get a quick buck ASAP before customers get too smart to fall for it. Writers already had a hard time getting around, now they have to deal with a never ending deluge of AI books, plus the risk of a legally distinct enough copy of their work showing up the next day.
Put it another way, the major use of AI thus far is “i want to make money without effort”
It definitely seems that way depending on what media you choose to consume. You should try to balance the doomer scroll with actual research and open source news.
I’m basing it mostly from personal and family experience. My mom often ends up watching AI made videos (stuff that’s just an AI narrator and AI images slideshow), my RPG group has poked fun at the amount of AI books that Amazon keeps suggesting them, anyone using instagram will, sooner or later, see adverts of famous people endorsing bogus products or sites via the magic of AI
So you don’t interact with AI stuff outside of that? Have you seen any cool research papers or messed with any local models recently? Getting a bit of experience with the stuff can help you better inform people and see through the more bogus headlines.
yes. but honestly, we should use this opportunity to push for better copyright law.
You can’t have a better law. Copyright laws are one-sided towards $billion companies. They would never agree to give more power to small creators or (worse) open-source projects who rely on such laws without making money.
Yes you can. Raise awareness, vote, contact representatives, organise and sign a large petition. This is eu only, if youre in us use 2nd amendment as intended in order to get your democracy back.
yeah i mean thats why we should push it, and not wait for lying politicians to do it for us.
Well the AI companies and investors should have understood that building an industry off of doing something questionable was risky and risks don’t always work out.
Using the same logic, it is "implausible" that we would not take money from those who have it and give it to the sheer volume of people who need it.
Oh. Suddenly it doesn't work that way. Huh. Funny how that is.
It depends on how rich you are. CEOs have their own, reduced edition of the law.
Pure entitlement mindset.
If your business is not able to stay afloat while providing fair compensation to those whose labor is used, whether employee, co-owner, or third-party, you are not entitled to keep running it. Society doesn’t have a duty to prop up wealthy thieves.
file under: “unsurprising capitalist takes”
[tardigrade_violin.jpg]
Terminator 7: Robot Pirates
I’m not a fan of intellectual property law. I’m down to abandon it, once we establish an artist stipend to pay a regular salary for artists to live a life of dignity.
Maybe introduce a tax on AI to pay for it.
yeah a 110% tax
If I ran the zoo, then any AI that trained on intellectual property as if it were public domain would automatically become public domain itself.
That’s the only correct take
How did the media industey call pirates? Parasites?
“Don’t copy that floppy” funded by rich people, or the more recent “You wouldn’t download” with pirated song and font. Fucking hypocrites.
That’s a myth. The music was licenced, as was the font.
What about news.sky.com/…/you-wouldnt-steal-a-font-famous-an… ?
They’re referring to a font used in promotional materials, rather than the advert itself.
Bank robbers say laws against bank robbery will kill bank robbery.
Also Clegg
probably.
Come on Disney! Use your god tier copyright lawyers and stop this AI shit for good.
<img alt="1000045335" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/efb74af6-46ea-4c04-aef8-2d7af6b022ef.jpeg">
Indeed. Simply that. If a business is not sustainable without breaking the law, it is not a business, it’s a criminal organisation.
I can hear this picture
Yes please.
<img alt=" " src="https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeWFyM2JrZzg5eWkyN202Y3liYnB3aDdmbnFtZ3lmN3dpbmxjdXh1dyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/J8FZIm9VoBU6Q/giphy.gif">
It’s implausible that I would pay for Netflix, Disney+, Paramount+, etc.
When I can just build a server and buy a VPN connection.
Makes sense. Paying for all those services would kill my ability to support other industries. Fair game.
I’m not pirating, I’m training the LLM that is in my skull. Don’t worry, I won’t remember the whole thing in a week and won’t use it to create art out of what I saw.
All big tech companies and the law agrees: pirating data to use as input data for intelligence is not piracy. There is finally an answer to the letters sent out by isps.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/fc44787c-e378-4496-b024-65f981e8f5da.jpeg">
There’s a thread of thought that pops up in pro-AI posters from time to time: technology can’t go backwards. The implication being that the current state of AI can only improve, and is here to stay.
This is wrong. Companies are spending multitudes of piles of cash to make AI work, and they could easily take their ball and go home. Extending copyright over the training data would likely trigger that, by the industry’s own admission.
No, self-hosted models are not going to change this. A bunch of people running around with their own little agents aren’t going to sustain a mass market phenomenon. You’re not going to have integration in Windows or VisualStudio or the top of Google search results. You’re not going to have people posting many pics on Facebook of Godzilla doing silly things.
The tech can go backwards, and we’re likely to see it.
Good, I think it should be killed.
AI or the music industry?
AI. Rich people trying to change the law to get richer via shady means is a huge no from me every time.
Yes
if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/be1a62a6-c2b8-48bc-8e5d-44678e896086.gif">
Fuck Nick Clegg. Fuck that guy into the fucking sun.
Back in 2010 he managed to surf a wave of genuine optimism from young British voters who wanted something less shit, and found himself in a position where he could have brought about some genuine change for the better.
Instead that cunt hitched his wagon to the fucking Tories, who straight away announced an increase to university tuition fees. And who then went on to spend 15 years raping and pillaging the country like only fucking Tories can.
So yeah, fuck Nick Clegg.
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was in a room with Meta, Hitler and Bin Laden. I would shoot Meta thrice.
But what if Toby was in the room?
Toby Fünke?
It’s from the office youtu.be/zIoqlLU4E74
Line them up, shoot Toby three times anyway
I would shoot hitler twice, then bin laden, then beat meta to death with the gun because it would hurt more.
What if you were in a room with Meta, Hitler and Nick Clegg?
So they want to be able to benifit from free art while the rest of us have to pay to access it? Seems fair. /s
I doubt it. With that $500 billion dollar grant, you can hire people to make art to train on. That’s a LOT of money.
What makes you think that they’d do that?
Oh I didn’t say they would do that. Nor do I think it would solve any big problem AI is causing society. I’m just pointing out that there’s a simple rebuttal to his argument.
If you’re giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn’t seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?
Specially when you realize that AI is for more than music, literature and other forms of illegal data processing. It can be used in a huge amount of other ways. One way for example would be to replace our president with a Combination of 4 magistrates and 1 AI…the republicans get 2, the Democrats get 2. AI gets to propose actions to take but has 0 authority in doing anything. Once a proposal has been made to do something, the 4 people get to discuss the action and implement it. If the implementation ends in a tie, then AI can ask the people to vote by phone. AI would then break the tie via the people’s popular vote. And no more electoral college, just use AI to pick the president based on the popular vote.
Nice, I want to be the company owning that “AI” algorithm!
The person who offered it probably didn’t notice how IRL con artists too often work by “just offering an idea”.
Doesn’t really matter though does it as long as the weights are open sourced everyone can confirm that the AI is unbiased.
That model’s name? AI Gore.
Bet you’re not worth $100+ million. Then you’d get it.
If someone wants to make me worth 100 million I wouldn’t complain. Can’t guarantee I’ll understand though.
A lot of AI fanboys secretly think that artists who rely on public funding to make a living deserve to be raped by gen AI companies.
The bit you’re missing is that the choice isnt between killing AI and killing the music industry, its between killing AI in the UK or pissing off IP holders somewhat. Do you think China give a fuck who’s IP they use in training models, or that they will stop if the UK passes a law making artists default out of using their work as training data?
What are you talking about this has nothing to do with UK policy decisions. The current UK government doesn’t have any interest in restricting AI usage I don’t know where you’re getting that idea from.
Nick Clegg never really had much to do with UK politics, he was a deputy prime minister but he wasn’t exactly in charge of anything, and he’s long since left politics entirely. His previous employment has no bearing on his current statements.
Because he’s speaking to a British newspaper about British policies. I’m assuming the second part as I don’t subscribe to the times so cant read the article, but there are currently plans in place in the UK to introduce an opt-out framework for people to remove permission for training on their work, with pushback from big names that want to charge rent on their old works, so I assume that is the subject.
Even if he wasn’t talking about the UK at all (which I think it is clear he is from context) my larger point still stands, the choice isn’t between stopping AI and allowing AI, its between allowing AI companies to operate in your jurisdiction or AI being trained elsewhere that is out of your control. There is no option for “stop this entirely”, unless you can persuade the USA and China at the very least to sign up to it. Which they wont.
Sounds like a plan!
My permission costs $2.50 for every time AI reads my text or uses it in the background. Thank you! Come again!
The AI industry not asking artists for permission will kill the art industry.
Too bad for him eventually when people push enough they get what they need. So if we need to get consent then darn it we are going to and he can look constipated about it. 😌
Ha… He was the Lib Dem poster boy for a good decade. And they’re something akin to pro-business libertarians. I wonder what Lib Dem Dep PM Clegg would have said to this!
He was the poster boy because he managed to rise to the rank of completely irrelevant, the highest level of office any lib dem has ever achieved.
They promised change, and delivered a coalition enabling the Tories to do what the Tories always do.
So?
Can’t they just write an ‘AI’ to ask an artist for permission then? I’ll bet they can. It’s just that most artists will say no unless they get paid. So, their business model, based on theft, is not sustainable. Got it.
If your industry can’t exist without theft then your industry doesn’t deserve to exist, pretty simple.
Copying isn’t theft, the original still exists. Just like watching pirated movies.
If someone pirates a movie for home use its no big deal because yes. If someone pirates a movie and then opens a movie theatre and starts charging people to watch the movie that’s an entirely different matter. AI is a business generating income, not a person skipping out on a $4 rental fee.
As long as people get punished for pirating media, corporations need to license their shit just as well.
The AI industry doesn’t want to abolish or reform copyright law, they just want an exception so that they can keep appropriating shit. On the contrary, they’re pretty mad that AI stuff isn’t covered by more copyright.
AI bros are not on the side of open culture.
I’m going to start an AI company then I can legally pirate anything I want.
I wonder how these companies will gatekeep their special AI status.
With hundreds of millions of dollars.
Well that was the irony I was attempting to point out. People took it quite literally tho.
Shit take when the results are used for profit. Most of us that pirate aren’t legally monetizing our stash.
Cool, so I can torrent without a VPN now?
Oh, only the super rich can benefit. How convenient.
Good.
Let’s hope it does.
If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.
Fucking rapist mentaility right there.
My thought exactly. If consent isn’t needed, what other actions do they deem justified without consent?
This is not a IP-issue, this is about human rights.
Same thing for most of billionaires’ income sources.
“Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry].”
hence why they push so heavily for automation, it makes it possible to earn about the same profit while respecting human rights. (nobody has a right to a job)
Yay, kill it please.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a921f2cf-012b-4606-98cc-4863452daeb2.gif">
Fine then, kill it.
Well let’s hope it will.
Tja
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/fd3e5444-7199-4547-a90c-9cb2cfe8c12e.gif">
Ah, if it isn’t my old friend Mr. Nick Clegg, with a dick for a face and an ass for a head!
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man on Wall Street; it belongs to the shareholders.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of ALL the brows?
oh noes
Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.
NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.
You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You’re gonna lose your billions in investment if you can’t plaigerize content?..fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.
Assholes
I have a proposition. Raid them with police and search their computers for stolen data like you would do with your citizens.
correction: will kill people’s attempts to make billions out of other people’s art. Otherwise inquisitive people will continue to do non-profit research this way or another.
Actually here is a question to you: Would you be ok if the law stated you don’t need permission if it is non-profit and open source? Yea I thought so bitch.
Oh, so it’d be ok to get movies, pictures, books, etc. without asking the right owners for us too? GREAT.
I’m ok with “ai” dying
So… what’s the down side to this bill?
I was thinking no fucking way this is the same Nick Clegg I’m thinking of, and then I read the description 💀
If it helps, he became a Facebook exec after losing his seat in the British Parliament.
A good example of the revolving door, but at least it wasn’t the other way around…
He admit it!
And not asking for it will kill whatever remains of the creative industries.
What do you want, a few years of ai slop followed by the more or less rapid decline of the internet (as it is overwhelmed with model collapse creative works and untrustable content) that will afford the likes of Clegg (in his role of ‘meta’ executive) a huge payout, or creative people having any hope of a sustained ability to make a living?
I know what I would prefer and I also know what is most likely going to happen. This is the result of decades of neo-liberal fossil-fuel-powered capitalism.
If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.
Contrary to popular belief among useful idiots, copyright and patent laws are not there to protect the working class.
If copyright and patent laws actually protected workers, why have we not seen rulers fight back against them until now?
This should be eye-opening to most of you, but that would involve admitting you were wrong.
Most people can’t do that.
So I can steal all their shit too, right? It would “Implausible” for me to do so.
Kill the AI industry? Sweet. As an artist I do not consent.
Cool, so I’ll get started on building an automated business that sells cheap access to all the music, movies and shows on the streaming services.
Getting consent for each title would basically kill my business and would be implausible, so I’ll just assume it’s ok.
Good.
Is this going in for a vote? Where do I vote?
Great, let’s do that.
Then it should die.
This is like saying “if we had to ask for consent, the human race would die.” Fucking creepy, rapist vibes.
No, it’s not like saying that.
Please stop trying to use rape as a way to get an emotional response for something unrelated.
Honestly not a bad thing, I mean you’re not going to OpenSource your AI so this is a good alternative
If asking for permission is going to kill an industry, then that industry should be killed.
In principle I agree. The problem is that there are countries which don’t care about respecting law and if you kill AI in the West, all that will happen is the West will get left behind.
<img alt="" src="https://aussie.zone/pictrs/image/bbef8c16-b814-4710-9775-290452f2ce7f.jpeg">
Rules for thee, not for me.
I thought copyright and patent laws were supposed to protect the little guy? Looks like as soon as they protect the little guy from big business, they stop mattering.
It’s almost like, they weren’t there to protect the little guy which is why big businesses never fought back against them.
I guess the useful idiots were wrong, again. Color me not-surprised.
If an industry can’t survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it’s not a viable business.
Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn’t have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?