Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

  • Dark Arc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s 100% a new problem. There’s established precedent for things costing different amounts depending on their intended use.

    For example, buying a consumer copy of song doesn’t give you the right to play that song in a stadium or a restaurant.

    Training an entire AI to make potentially an infinite number of derived works from your work is 100% worthy of requiring a special agreement. This even goes beyond simple payment to consent; a climate expert might not want their work in an AI which might severely mischatacterize the conclusions, or might want to require that certain queries are regularly checked by a human, etc

    • bouncing@partizle.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is, copyright isn’t really well-suited to the task, because copyright concerns itself with who gets to, well, make copies. Training an AI model isn’t really making a copy of that work. It’s transformative.

      Should there be some kind of new model of renumeration for creators? Probably. But it should be a compulsory licensing model.

      • jecxjo@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The slippery slope here is that we are currently considering humans and computers to be different because (something someone needs to actually define). If you say “AI read my book and output a similar story, you owe me money” then how is that different from “Joe read my book and wrote a similar story, you owe me money.” We have laws already that deal with this but honestly how many books and movies aren’t just remakes of Romeo and Juliet or Taming of the Shrew?!?

        • bouncing@partizle.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you say “AI read my book and output a similar story, you owe me money” then how is that different from “Joe read my book and wrote a similar story, you owe me money.”

          You’re bounded by the limits of your flesh. AI is not. The $12 you spent buying a book at Barns & Noble was based on the economy of scarcity that your human abilities constrain you to.

          It’s hard to say that the value proposition is the same for human vs AI.

          • jecxjo@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are making an assumption that humans do “human things”. If i wrote a derivative work of your $12 book, does it matter that the way i wrote it was to use a pen and paper and create a statistical analysis of your work and find the “next best word” until i had a story? Sure my book took 30 years to write but if i followed the same math as an AI would that matter?

            • bouncing@partizle.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It wouldn’t matter, because derivative works require permission. But I don’t think anyone’s really made a compelling case that OpenAI is actually making directly derivative work.

              The stronger argument is that LLM’s are making transformational work, which is normally fair use, but should still require some form of compensation given the scale of it.

              • jecxjo@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                But no one is complaining about publishing derived work. The issue is that “the robot brain has full copies of my text and anything it creates ‘cannot be transformative’”. This doesn’t make sense to me because my brain made a copy of your book too, its just really lossy.

                I think right now we have definitions for the types of works that only loosely fit human actions mostly because we make poor assumptions of how the human brain works. We often look at intent as a guide which doesn’t always work in an AI scenario.

                • bouncing@partizle.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, that’s basically it.

                  But I think what’s getting overlooked in this conversation is that it probably doesn’t matter whether it’s AI or not. Either new content is derivative or it isn’t. That’s true whether you wrote it or an AI wrote it.

                  • jecxjo@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I agree with that, but do politicians and judges who know absolutely nothing about the subject?

                    I haf a professor in college who taught about cyber security. He was renowned in his field and was asked by the RIAA to testify about some cases related to file sharing. I lost respect for him when he intentionally refrained from stating that it wasnt possible for anyone outside of the home network yo know what or who was actually downloading stuff. The technology was being ignored and an invalid view was presented for a judge who couldn’t ELI5 how the internet worked let along actually networking protocols.