I do know that it is completely unethical. A few large companies should not be able to package up and sell the totality of humanity's creative output at the expense of humanity itself.
The backlash is certainly just beginning. Thus far, AI usage beyond brief exploration have mostly been driven by tech folks. As more people outside of the bubble get clued into what is happening, I think that reputations will take a serious hit.
With IP, corporations originated their ideas, so executives want to prevent others from copying.
With generative AI, corporations are copying individual's ideas, so executives want to allow this copying.
A private company securing the worlds resources physically, financially and informationally and selling it to anyone of its choosing or not -- is the true startling contempt for human life, especially those that follow along without an ounce of critical thinking.
The world you're arguing for isn't one where small-time artists are adequately compensated for their work. It's one where Disney and Elsevier collect a bunch of rents and hold back development of tools that would radically improve human well-being. Even in the best case, your copyright suggestion will privilege the giant corporations who have the capability to navigate copyright rules against a bunch of other giant corporations, at the expense of smaller researchers and hobbyists.
I'd be more than happy to sign into something saying "a small artist has a right to prevent training on their work without permission for a decade after it's released." But that is not in the cards, unfortunately.
Copyright doesn't really privilege giant corporations. In a world without it, they can just use their market power and immense resources (e.g., SaaS) to protect their interests.
Copyright is one of the few tools the little guy can use to protect their interests against giant corporations. Abolish it, and one of the first things that will happen is the RIAA will stop paying artists anything and become the biggest "pirate" in the world.
It's mind boggling how some people have that so backwards. I'm guessing it stems from only thinking about copyright in the context of "RIAA sues..." articles and complaints about Elsevier, without thinking about it from any other angles.
Ok! I appreciate this insight. At this point I'll be 'scraping' everything from tech and fight this in court with their own words.
That arguably slows down the pace of medical advance.
One might note that those massive fees do not go to the "creatives", in this case the scientists. The scientist do the research, write the papers, peer-review the papers of others, edit the journals... and the publisher pockets the money. That's the case with most "intellectual property" -- the person who actually gets paid the lion's share is not the "creative".
The rest is just airing itself like dirty laundry by the second response and ultimately just serves in contributing to a humans ability to quickly adapt to new environments. Which means bullshit just smells more nuanced today.
That's not for you to decide.
>has nothing to do with open source
It has everything to do with open source. If only Disney and getty images are allowed to train ai, there will be extreme monopolisation.
Of course it is, my content my rules.
You don't get to make up your own laws, mang.
They saw Uber get away with it's thing, so they're going to try to get away with theirs. IIRC, when Uber was new, it was literally illegal in many/most of the places it operated.
You don't get to decide that, certainly not as a blanket statement. We're gonna have to wait for the courts.
This is exactly why we need to BAN weaving machines. The will to live is sustained by the work of the skilled artisans who create clothing by hand with looms.
"But I don't want to pay 500 dollars for a t-shirt", you say. What astounding arrogance! Stop destroying culture and accept that we need to protect this valuable craft from technology that threatens to steamroll it.
If you think throwing life into a black box and consuming its results will improve productivity and enhance creativity. You're forgetting the only thing we feed this thing is 'results'. You're drinking the piss from a million artists and thinking it's fresh water. Eventually this filtered, censored source of creativity is creating for AI and not humans because humans quit being a source of material and nothing more than a requester.
The short sightedness of believing you can commodify the human spirit is the most incredulous shit I've ever seen.
And seemingly harder to reach non-monopoly/oligopoly solutions.
Paying people to move goalposts is expensive, and it might turn out to be a flop, but you could do both with Sora cheaply, and even make it into an interactive movie which, something impossible with conventional read only films.
They skirt around the important details, in that in all those analogies the entire process/field wasn't replaced/impacted by automation, only facets. Advanced generative NNs aren't merely dumb automated tools that still require human craftmanship but rather, at a baseline, take the place of the humans in virtually all respects of design, implementation and continually synthesizing based on others' work.
The analogy presented in your post doesn't account for the designers still involved with the process, the real-world practicalities that involve humans of getting clothing made even with all the automation available. Generative AI doesn't have this goal; it's increasingly allowing for replacement of all humans and processes involved, besides the one wishing upon a genie lamp.
Now one can of course apply their own craftsmanship to such outputs if desired and there are examples of this from existing artists/writers where it fits more like a tool into a workflow (and such analogies would actually apply here), however as we can already observe the vast majority of uses don't and there is still at a minimum a usable result, as the tech advances.
There are also parallels one commonly reads drawn to how humans operate: if a human studied others' artwork then they too would be able to synthesize results. However no human has memory and mind's eye recall like that of advanced NNs, which is plainly observable from the output of human history. It's an unfair comparison. The goal of generative models is to be superhuman yet only human arguments are being applied.
I think there are a bunch of positives and negatives to this but it's hard not to see the impact it will have particularly on human motivation and societal expectations, regardless of financial incentives, apart from the general shut-up-and-take-it attitude one sees. There are some pretty impactful legitimate concerns to be had that warrant thoughtful discussion.
These two things are connected, actually:
>The FAQ notes that submission rank is impacted by "software which downweights overheated discussions." A good rule of thumb for this effect is when the number of comments on a submission exceeds its score.
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented?tab=re...
I promise, if I'm here asking this week, there's millions more that will be asking next week. Carving out the labour market has more consequences than increasing productivity. It destroys culture, society and a will to live. Wise up.
edit: And before the inevitable responses begin pouring in. Even the argued ethically sourced material scooped up from Shutterstock, et al. is still shrouded in dark patterns, hidden automatically enabled opt-in removal of rights, automated payments to tie up the fact you accepted payment as part of the argument in court. It all stinks, it should all tumble.