What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?
AI doesn’t copy things anymore than a person copies them by attending a concert or museum.
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
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
Disband Copyright
Either get rid of copyright for everything and everyone, or don’t.
But no stupid BULLSHIT exception for AI slop.
Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.
One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
You know I am somewhat of a large language model myself.
At this rate we will get access to more rights if we can figure out a way to legally classify ourselves as AI.
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
Did this already play out at Reddit? Ai was one of the reasons I left but I believe it’s a different scenario. I freely contributed my content to Reddit for the purposes of building an interactive community, but they changed the terms without my consent. I did NOT contribute my content so they could make money selling it for ai training
The only logical distinction I see with s ai aren’t human: an exception for humans does not apply to non-humans even if the activity is similar
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
AI stans always say stuff like this, but it doesn’t make sense to me at all.
AI does not learn the same way that a human does: it has no senses of its own with which to observe the world or art, it has no lived experiences, it has no agency, preferences or subjectivity, and it has no real intelligence with which to interpret or understand the work that it is copying from. AI is simply a matrix of weights that has arbitrary data superimposed on it by people and companies.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
If you are then you must know that the things you create are certainly indirectly influenced by SOME of the things that you have experienced (be it walking around on a sunny day, your favorite scene from your favorite movie, the lyrics of a song, etc.), AS WELL AS your own unique and creative persona, your own ideas, your own philosophy, and your own personal development.
Look at how an artist creates a painting and compare it to how generative AI creates a painting. Similarly, look at how artists train and learn their craft and compare it to how generative AI models are trained. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
(And that’s still ignoring the obvious corporate element and the four pillars of fair use consideration (US law, not UK, mind you). For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.)
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?
- There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
- What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
- Does this put Reddit in a new light? Free content to users but charging for the api to do bulk download such as for ai?
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.
hello yes I’m an ai company. let me torrent all the things pls thank you
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.
That’s exactly what Meta did, they torrented the full libgen database of books.
If they can do it, anybody should be able to do it.
I like how their whole excuse to that was “WE DIDN’T SEED ANY OF IT BACK THOUGH” which arguably makes it even worse lol.
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.
Technically it was never illegal in the US to download copywritten content. It was illegal to distribute them. That was literally Meta’s defence in court: they didn’t seed any downloads.
they didn’t seed any downloads
So Meta, 100% leeching.
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
I identify as an AI company ☠️
no no, i mean people should actually start utilizing this bullshit. Anyone can start a company and with some technical knowhow you can add somekind of ai crap to it. companies dont have to make profit or anything useful so there is no pressure to do anything with it.
But if it comes to copyright law not applying to ai companies, why should some rich assholes be only ones exploiting that? It might lead to some additional legal bullshit that excludes this hypotetical kind of ai company, but that would also highlight better that the law benefits only the rich.
No more ads on youtube
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
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.
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.
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so…
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
Exactly. Paul Mc Cartney have been trained on copyrighted material and should give his money back to the majors
That is definitely one of the most cooked takes I’ve heard in a while.
Why would anyone create anything if it can immediately be copied with no compensation to you?
I don’t see how allowing AI robbery barons to steal copyrighted material would benefit a small fish in the pond of IP
Creation happened before intellectual property laws existed.
Creation happens that can be immediately copied with no compensation now, open source software is an example.
How many authors do you think would have written the books they did, if they weren’t able to make a living from their work? Most of the people creating works before copyright either had a patron of some description, or outright worked for an organisation.
The specific works? Who knows. It’s irrelevant
My point is your original premise was wrong. Creation DID happen without IP laws. People DO create with out the need for compensation/copy protection.
I propose, people will create things because they always have.
I think copyright should last maximum 10 years. Plenty of time to earn enough from your creation.
Imagine how advanced we would be, as a civilization, if everything created before 2015 was free for everybody.
Honestly, I think our world would be a lot blander, and we’d have a whole lot less original content.
You probably only consume Hollywood prechewed crap and universal soup they call “music”
Creation is its own incentive.
And I can buy groceries with thoughts and prayers.
Do you make any money out of copyrights?
The original copyright law was created to protect authors from publishers. The current law is an abomination and should be removed.
You’re probably right, but saying we should abolish it altogether is insane. There’s a good reason we have these laws.
There are no good reasons.
Really? Artists getting paid for their work isn’t a good reason?
You know that for the vast majority of human history copyright didn’t exist, and yet people still created art and culture, right?
edit: If you’re gonna downvote, have the balls to explain how I’m wrong.
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
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.
