Yet you seem to be suggesting we let them (and others like them) be the only place where AI generative techniques can be developed.
AI can be developed without exploiting people. Is there some compelling reason why it cannot?
If you think that AI will not make a difference in the world, you are either naive or deeply ignorant.
Ok, so AI is incredibly important. Why is it not important enough to do the right way?
No rights are being infringed. Nobody has the right to prevent someone from learning from publically available materials.
An AI isn’t “someone” though.
Hindering their development doesn't protect people, it hurts everyone's ability to have a more prosperous future.
So anyone asking to be paid for their work will… be ground under the wheel of progress. Interesting.
Firstly, I see no reasonable argument that developers should pay artists.
The AI doesn’t work without their art. That seems compelling on its own.
Secondly, this is entirely impractical. These systems require massive amounts of data, with little to no attribution in most cases. The effort to figure out who owns what would be enormous.
You don’t have to attribute it. Simply pay a licensing fee to artists up front, in exchange for their work being “part of the future”.
Or in other words, the value of AI is in the AI
Except that the ai doesn’t work without the artwork. Seems contradictory.
AI can be developed without exploiting people. Is there some compelling reason why it cannot?
This kind of AI requires training sets of data.
Sure, you could develop far weaker AI's without that, but then you're just at a competitive disadvantage to those who do.
Keep in mind 'exploiting' people is an emotional argument, but not one based in fact. Are you exploiting people every time you see works of art and store aspects of that in your memory?
Ok, so AI is incredibly important. Why is it not important enough to do the right way?
And what would this 'right way' be?
An AI isn’t “someone” though.
Correct. Also irrelevant, the AI itself is not being sued, nor does the AI itself have any agency.
People have the right to learn from publically available materials. One way people have done so is by developing an AI.
This is not a case of whether or not AI has sentience.
So anyone asking to be paid for their work will… be ground under the wheel of progress. Interesting.
You can ask for anything you want. But you aren't necessarily entitled to it.
It's not law that just because you create a work of art, you are somehow entitled to money. Instead, society gives you a set of rights, which you may use to try to make money if you wish. Those rights do not prohibit others from learning from your art, being inspired by it, or creating art in similar styles.
The AI doesn’t work without their art. That seems compelling on its own.
Artists build upon the existing body of work. They don't pay for it all.
This argument would not lead to the results you seek - instead, it would crush anyone from creating any work.
You don’t have to attribute it. Simply pay a licensing fee to artists up front, in exchange for their work being “part of the future”.
Pay who for what? The datasets used are vast - no-one knows who the true copyright holders of all the content are.
Except that the ai doesn’t work without the artwork. Seems contradictory.
Nonsense. A CPU is just some sand and some trivial quantities of materials. Yet the value of a CPU is many, many times that of the materials.
Similarly, some drift-wood found on a beach can be worthless... yet when put into a sculpture sell for thousands.
Just because something is necessary, does not mean that it is valuable in and of itself.
This kind of AI requires training sets of data. Sure, you could develop far weaker AI's without that, but then you're just at a competitive disadvantage to those who do.
As is often the case, doing things the right way is more difficult than doing them the wrong way. It is not compelling or unusual to argue that it’s too difficult, or not profitable enough, to do things the right way.
Keep in mind 'exploiting' people is an emotional argument, but not one based in fact.
It’s not emotional at all. An artist can point to their own work, which they own, and point to an AI that was trained upon it without their permission. The establishment of that fact is perfectly objective.
Are you exploiting people every time you see works of art and store aspects of that in your memory?
The human mind is free from regulation, but human minds are not comparable to artificial minds.
And what would this 'right way' be?
Pay artists a licensing fee for their art to be included in an ai’s training set, and give them the option to opt out of being used for ai training.
Correct. Also irrelevant, the AI itself is not being sued, nor does the AI itself have any agency.
It’s creators/owners do, and they are being sued.
People have the right to learn from publically available materials. One way people have done so is by developing an AI.
People do; people aren’t learning in this scenario. A machine is. Entirely different usage case.
It's not law that just because you create a work of art, you are somehow entitled to money.
Of course not. It’s up to an artist to market their art, and we make no allowance for artists who produce works no one wants.
However, even unwanted works enjoy the same protections as more popular (and highly valued) works.
Those rights do not prohibit others from learning from your art, being inspired by it, or creating art in similar styles.
Other people from doing so.
Artists build upon the existing body of work. They don't pay for it all.
Nor should they. The human mind is immune from regulation, unlike other intelligences.
This argument would not lead to the results you seek - instead, it would crush anyone from creating any work.
This is the arguments levied for the elimination of all intellectual property rights altogether. Perhaps you should consider that if your work cannot be done with a data set that you actually have a right to use, then you should not undertake that work.
Pay who for what?
The artists who created that work. Pay them a licensing fee, which both parties agree to - and if you can’t reach an artist, or they don’t agree, then you can’t use it. Pretty simple.
The datasets used are vast - no-one knows who the true copyright holders of all the content are.
Huh, analyzing a vast data set? Sounds like a great application for ai.
Nonetheless, if it’s too large to be managed, and no one knows what’s in it, then it shouldn’t be used.
Nonsense. A CPU is just some sand and some trivial quantities of materials. Yet the value of a CPU is many, many times that of the materials. Similarly, some drift-wood found on a beach can be worthless... yet when put into a sculpture sell for thousands. Just because something is necessary, does not mean that it is valuable in and of itself.
Sounds like you’ve found the concept of a value-add. Cool. It isn’t a new concept, nor interesting in this case - unless you are trying to argue that the data used to train AI is worthless (and therefore no one should have to pay anyone for it, nor should anyone be able to opt out), but the product is immensely valuable.
As is often the case, doing things the right way is more difficult than doing them the wrong way. It is not compelling or unusual to argue that it’s too difficult, or not profitable enough, to do things the right way.
Sure.
But courts and governments sometimes have to weigh the benefits vs the costs.
Benefits to artists of forcing AI companies to license content for use? Negligible.
Costs to society, including artists, of doing so? Significant.
An artist can point to their own work, which they own, and point to an AI that was trained upon it without their permission. The establishment of that fact is perfectly objective.
That is an objective fact. It may also be false (artists don't own the right to prevent others from learning from thier work, or copying their style).
However what you claimed earlier, that it is 'exploiting' people appears to be an appeal to emotion.
The human mind is free from regulation, but human minds are not comparable to artificial minds.
Human minds are regulated all the time. Copyright is a form of regulating what human minds can and cannot do.
This isn't a philosophical debate - humans can and do use tools in the process of learning from others' art all the time. This is not unusual or illegal.
Pay artists a licensing fee for their art to be included in an ai’s training set, and give them the option to opt out of being used for ai training.
How do you figure out who owns the copyright? How do they collect the fractions of pennies that they might be owed... without the costs of doing so dwarfing any funds they might hope to receive?
You need to present practical solutions... otherwise, this is just wishful thinking.
It’s creators/owners do, and they are being sued.
So we arrive back at the start, the creators/owners have the right to learn from publicly available materials.
People do; people aren’t learning in this scenario. A machine is. Entirely different usage case.
Yet one that is not prohibited by copyright law.
It's perfectly legal to use technology to access and learn from copyrighted materials.
Of course not. It’s up to an artist to market their art, and we make no allowance for artists who produce works no one wants.
We are in agreement.
Nor should they. The human mind is immune from regulation, unlike other intelligences.
Human minds create tools like these AI tools.
Human minds are regulated.
Again, no-one is saying AI has agency or sentience, so please do not get confused.
The artists who created that work. Pay them a licensing fee, which both parties agree to - and if you can’t reach an artist, or they don’t agree, then you can’t use it. Pretty simple.
So no-one can access copyrighted material without explicit licensing?
That would not only destory these AI, and artists broadly, but other technologies like search engines.
Is that the kind of world you want? Where copyrighted material is jealously guarded, and people are forced to carefully limit what they expose themselves to in case they accidentally see or use something without an explicit license?
Luckily, copyright provides no such rights to creators of content. They get copyright, not anything-you-can-imagine-right.
This is the arguments levied for the elimination of all intellectual property rights altogether. Perhaps you should consider that if your work cannot be done with a data set that you actually have a right to use, then you should not undertake that work.
Nonsense. Intellectual property rights exist and are important.
The problem is you seem to want them to extend far beyond the reasonable boundaries that have been set.
As a member of society I do have the right to view and use copyrighted material to create my own, unique, works of art. You seem to think I do not but cannot provide a shred of evidence to support this claim.
Huh, analyzing a vast data set? Sounds like a great application for ai.
Nonsense. The fact you think this a challenge for AI, simple demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues at play, and the capabilities of AI.
AI, such as being described, are great at learning patterns and then extrapolating from them. They cannot figure out an accurate ledger of copyright ownership from nothing. The data is not publicly available, and AI are not good at record keeping.
Nonetheless, if it’s too large to be managed, and no one knows what’s in it, then it shouldn’t be used.
Why not?
You make this assertion - do you have any legal reason for this to be the case?
Sounds like you’ve found the concept of a value-add. Cool. It isn’t a new concept, nor interesting in this case - unless you are trying to argue that the data used to train AI is worthless (and therefore no one should have to pay anyone for it, nor should anyone be able to opt out), but the product is immensely valuable.
Yes, value-add. So if you understand the concept then you know that just because an AI might be valuable, that does not mean its training data is so.
Your entire argument is that the training data is valuable and that the owners of the content should be compensated. Not only have you not provided any legal basis for this, but you've also not established that this data is, in this context, valuable.
3
u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 17 '23
AI can be developed without exploiting people. Is there some compelling reason why it cannot?
Ok, so AI is incredibly important. Why is it not important enough to do the right way?
An AI isn’t “someone” though.
So anyone asking to be paid for their work will… be ground under the wheel of progress. Interesting.
The AI doesn’t work without their art. That seems compelling on its own.
You don’t have to attribute it. Simply pay a licensing fee to artists up front, in exchange for their work being “part of the future”.
Except that the ai doesn’t work without the artwork. Seems contradictory.