Whoever brings Aaron Swartz back gets to violate all the copyright laws
Aaron Swartz was 100% opposed to all copyright laws, you remember that yah?
Yes, and he killed himself after the FBI was throwing the book at him for doing exactly what these AI assholes are doing without repercussion
And for some reason suddenly everyone leaps back to the side of the FBI and copyright because it’s a meme to hate on LLMs.
It’s almost like people don’t have real convictions.
You can’t be Team Aaron when it’s popular and then Team Copyright Maximalist when the winds change and it’s time to hate on LLMs or diffusion models.
And he also said “child pornography is not necessarily abuse.”
In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.
This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won’t make the abuse go away. We don’t arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.
Wired has an article on how these laws destroy honest people’s lives.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130116210225/http://bits.are.notabug.com/
Big yikes from me whenever I see him venerated.
I’m not just a copyright abolitionnist, I also abhor all intellectual property. Yes, even trademsrk
Me too. I fundamentally oppose the idea that ideas can be owned, even by oneself.
But a weird cult has developed around copyright where people think they are on the side of the little guy by defending copyright.
It’s classic false consciousness of the temporarily embarrassed billionaire, except for the benefit of the blood 🐭 mouse in this case
If I’m using “AI” to generate subtitles for the “community” is ok if i have a large “datastore” of “licensable media” stored locally to work off of right?
Sam Altman is a grifter, but on this topic he is right.
The reality is, that IP laws in their current form hamper innovation and technological development. Stephan Kinsella has written on this topic for the past 25 years or so and has argued to reform the system.
Here in the Netherlands, we know that it’s true. Philips became a great company because they could produce lightbulbs here, which were patented in the UK. We also had a booming margarine business, because we weren’t respecting British and French patents and that business laid the foundation for what became Unilever.
And now China is using those exact same tactics to build up their industry. And it gives them a huge competitive advantage.
A good reform would be to revert back to the way copyright and patent law were originally developed, with much shorter terms and requiring a significant fee for a one time extension.
The current terms, lobbied by Disney, are way too restrictive.
I totally agree. Patents and copyright have their place, but through greed they have been morphed into monstrous abominations that hold back society. I also think that if you build your business on crawled content, society has a right to the result to a fair price. If you cannot provide that without the company failing, then it deserves to fail because the business model obviously was built on exploitation.
I agree, which is why I advocate for reform, not abolishment.
Perhaps AI companies should pay a 15% surcharge on their services and that money goes directly into the arts.
But Sam is talking about copyright and all your examples are patents
It just so happens that in AI it’s about copyright and with margarine (and most other technologies) it’s about patents.
But the point is the same. Technological development is held back by law in both cases.
If all IP laws were reformed 50 years ago, we would probably have the technology from 2050, today.
It’s all the same shit. No patents and copyrights should exist.
Is it? In Sam’s case, we’re mostly talking about creative products in the form of text, audio, and video. If an artist releases a song and the song is copyrighted, it doesn’t hamper innovation and technological development. The same cannot be said when a company patents a sorting algorithm, the method for swiping to unlock a smartphone, or something similar.
If copyrights are used to add a huge price tag to any AI development, then it did just hamper innovation and technological development.
And sadly, what most are clamoring for will disproportionately affect open source development.
If open source apps can’t be copyrighted then the GPL is worthless and that will harm open source development much more
I’m not sure how that applies in the current context, where it would be used as training data.
Because once you can generate the GPL code from the lossy ai database trained on it the GPL protection is meaningless.
That’s not fair to change the system only when businesses require it. I received a fuckin’ letter from a government entity where I live for having downloaded the trash tier movie “Demolition”.
I agree copyright and patents are bad but it’s so infuriating that only the rich and powerful can choose not to respect it.
So I think openAI has to pay because as of now that shitty copyright and patent system is still there and has hurt many individuals around the world.
We should try to change the laws for copyright but after the big businesses pay their due.
I mean, I’d say there’s a qualitative difference between industrial products and a novel, for example.
Lmao Sam Altman doesn’t want tbe rules chanhed for you. He wants it changed for him.
You will still be beholden to the laws.
I mean if they pay for it like everyone else does I don’t think it is a problem. Yes it will cost you billions and billions to do it correctly, but then you basically have the smartest creature on earth (that we know of) and you can replicate/improve on it in perpetuity. We still will have to pay you licensing fees to use it in our daily lives, so you will be making those billions back.
Now I would say let them use anything that is old and freeware, textbooks, etc. government owned stuff - we sponsored it with our learning, taxes - so we get a percentage in all AI companies. Humanity gets a 51% stake in any AI business using humanity’s knowledge, so we are then free to vote on how the tech is being used and we have a controlling share, also whatever price is set, we get half of it back in taxes at the end of the year. The more you use it the more you pay and the more you get back.
They’re unprofitable as it is already. They’re not going to be able to generate enough upfront capital to buy and then enclose all of humanity’s previous works to then sell it back to us. I also think it would be heinous that they could enclose and exploit our commons in this manner. It belongs to all of us. Sure train it and use it, but also release it open (or the gov can confiscate it, fine with that as well). Anything but allowing those rat-snakes to keep it all for themselves.
They can be even more unprofitable like Amazon was for years and years - and now they print money. I don’t think it’s a bad model, but it’s gonna come down to just a couple governments/companies having powerful AIs where we are not needed anymore - so if it’s privately owned it would spell doom for the human species or at least a huge portion of it, potential enslavement as well.
If it costs billions and billions, then only a handful of companies can afford to build an AI and they now have a monopoly on a technology that will eventually replace a chunk of the workforce. It would basically be giving our economy to Google.
Yep exactly, that’s why you make it people owned. What is your alternative ? They do have companies/governments that can afford it even at these steep prices.
The owners of the copyrighted works should be paid in perpetuity too though, since part of their work goes into everything the AI spits out.
I don’t see why I’m downvoted for this, but I don’t agree with this opinion - it’s like teaching a human being. If you buy everything once it’s still a hell of a bill - we are talking all books, all movies, all games, all software, all memes, all things - 1 of each is still trillions if you legally want to train your new thing on it.
But a human can’t look at a painting for a millisecond and spit out an exact replica in the next. A human can’t listen to the collected works of a musical artist and instantly improvise infinite sound-a-like songs based on complex prompts. A human can’t read every scientific article on the Internet in a few seconds and regurgitate any and every tiny trivial detail on demand in the literal blink of an eye. A human being has a soul. Most do anyway.
For the record, I didn’t downvote you, but I’m guessing others did because you don’t seem to see how AI so obviously devalues the beautiful and brilliant efforts of the human spirit to build and sustain our cultures, our societies, our civilizations, our species, our very world. In the capitalist hellscape that we currently suffer in, that kind of devaluing ought to be criminal.
Not targetting you specifically, but I guess AI is going to be a hard subject in the future.
Think of it as an expert in all other areas and you spend a year teaching it to be a better expert and so on. It’s just humanity’s digital baby that we are teaching based on our current knowledge, technology, art, values, morals, etc. - and it’s just much better than you or me at learning so it’s becoming an expert in everything, thus as you expect from an expert it’s able to draw, it’s able to replicate style’s of music, it’s able to think through complex math/physics/chem/biology problems as a human expert might be able to. Yet it has fatal flaws that need fixing, thus needs better training methods and more time - they are saying 2029 for AGI which is the first step. At that point it won’t be up to you or me to decide as it will be a new living form that we will have to acknowledge and let it decide for itself what it wants or doesn’t want to do.
I guess my point is it seems like it’s devaluing stuff, but is in fact elevating everything that we were, we are and will be - that’s why I’m saying it should be owned by all of us, we should all get the benefits. If a painter wants to draw something, they can use AI to draw faster, with more variations at a speed impossible before, you can make new styles, you can make it use just your own style, you save time and can create more complex works because of that. Real world paintings made by humans the old school way will always have a place, my thoughts are that they will even gain an exclusive status and be worth even more with proof of creation.
Not saying things are not bad right now, but what if AI is the path forward, like technology always has been - what if it helps cure all diseases past and future, what if it figures out how to make us immortal, what if we can travel instantenously from 1 place in the universe to another, imagine the possibilities that it will open to us. I think it’s inevitable really.
Fucking hellscape
Okay, bye!
chatgpt is stagnant, the newest model was lackluster despite using way more resources and costing a shitload of cash, Altman is floundering and on his way out he’s going to try do some lobbying bullshit
Copyright is bullshit and honestly if it disappeared it would help small creators more than anything but openai is not a small creator and guaranteed they will lobby for only huge corps like them to get such an exception. You and I will still get sued to shit by disney or whoever for daring to make $500 off of a shitty project that used some sample or something while meta and openai get free reign to steal the entirety of humanity’s creative output with no recompense
Ip should solely be with the creator and not the corporation that owns that creator. A lot of problems in stems is IP held hostage by the corporations and by publishing companies of research papers
Then let it be over then.
“How are we supposed to win the race if we can’t cheat?!”
Good, end this AI bullshit, it has little upsides and a metric fuckton of downsides for the common man
If everyone can ‘train’ themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.‘’
Otherwise, get fucked.
Oh no! How could we ever live without AI?
National security my ass. More like his time span to show more dumb “achievements” while getting richer depends on it and nothing else
Good. If I ever published anything, I would absolutely not want it to be pirated by AI so some asshole can plagiarize it later down the line and not even cite their sources.
