- cross-posted to:
- Technology@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- Technology@programming.dev
- Nick Clegg, former Meta executive and UK Deputy Prime Minister, has reiterated a familiar line when it comes to AI and artist consent.
- He said that any push for consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.
- Clegg added that the sheer volume of data that AI is trained on makes it “implausible” to ask for consent.
You must log in or register to comment.
Well the AI companies and investors should have understood that building an industry off of doing something questionable was risky and risks don’t always work out.
If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.
Fucking rapist mentaility right there.
My thought exactly. If consent isn’t needed, what other actions do they deem justified without consent?
This is not a IP-issue, this is about human rights.
oh noes
Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.
NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.
You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You’re gonna lose your billions in investment if you can’t plaigerize content?..fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.
Assholes
If abiding to the law destroys your business then you are a criminal. Simple as.
But the law is largely the reverse. It only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon.
AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. Setting up barriers like these only benefit the ultra-wealthy and will end with corporations gaining a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive and cumbersome for regular folks. What the people writing this article want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would jeopardize research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.
The fact that this is upvoted is so funny but unsurprising given the types who visit this site
They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.
Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use
Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free. “But they spent money and time and resources!” So did everyone who created the stuff they’re using for their training, so they can fuck off.
The article by Tory also says these things:
This facilitates the creation of art that simply would not have existed and allows people to express themselves in ways they couldn’t without AI. (…) Generative AI has the power to democratize speech and content creation, much like the internet has.
I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.
Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use
You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.
Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free.
I agree
I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.
But 99.9% of the internet is stuff that no one would miss. Things don’t have to have value to you to be worth having around. That trash could serve as inspiration for your 0.1% of people or garner feedback for people to improve.
The apparent main use for AI thus far is spam and scam, which is what I was thinking about when dismissing most content made with that. While the internet was already chock full of that before AI, its availability is increasing those problems tenfold
Yes, people use it for other things, like “art”, but most people using it for “art” are trying to get a quick buck ASAP before customers get too smart to fall for it. Writers already had a hard time getting around, now they have to deal with a never ending deluge of AI books, plus the risk of a legally distinct enough copy of their work showing up the next day.
Put it another way, the major use of AI thus far is “i want to make money without effort”
It definitely seems that way depending on what media you choose to consume. You should try to balance the doomer scroll with actual research and open source news.
I’m basing it mostly from personal and family experience. My mom often ends up watching AI made videos (stuff that’s just an AI narrator and AI images slideshow), my RPG group has poked fun at the amount of AI books that Amazon keeps suggesting them, anyone using instagram will, sooner or later, see adverts of famous people endorsing bogus products or sites via the magic of AI
So you don’t interact with AI stuff outside of that? Have you seen any cool research papers or messed with any local models recently? Getting a bit of experience with the stuff can help you better inform people and see through the more bogus headlines.
I don’t really disagree with your other two points, but
You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.
They sure do, of which that is not one. That’s de facto copyright infringement or plagiarism. Especially if you then turn around and sell that product.
The key point that is being made is that it you are doing de facto copyright infringement of plagiarism by creating a copy, it shouldn’t matter whether that copy was made though copy paste, re-compressing the same image, or by using AI model. The product being the copy paste operation, the image editor or the AI model here, not the (copyrighted) image itself. You can still sell computers with copy paste (despite some attempts from large copyright holders with DRM), and you can still sell image editors.
However, unlike copy paste and the image editor, the AI model could memorize and emit training data, without the input data implying the copyrighted work. (exclude the case where the image was provided itself, or a highly detailed description describing the work was provided, as in this case it would clearly be the user that is at fault, and intending for this to happen)
At the same time, it should be noted that exact replication of training data isn’t exactly desirable in any case, and online services for image generation could include a image similarity check against training data, and many probably do this already.
Removed by mod
Yeah, anyone who thinks stealing content explicitly for financial gain is fair use needs their head checked.
Insanely weak they deleted this
deleted by creator
You can’t have a better law. Copyright laws are one-sided towards $billion companies. They would never agree to give more power to small creators or (worse) open-source projects who rely on such laws without making money.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Good.
if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was in a room with Meta, Hitler and Bin Laden. I would shoot Meta thrice.
I would shoot hitler twice, then bin laden, then beat meta to death with the gun because it would hurt more.
But what if Toby was in the room?
Line them up, shoot Toby three times anyway
Toby Fünke?
It’s from the office https://youtu.be/zIoqlLU4E74
What if you were in a room with Meta, Hitler and Nick Clegg?
Same thing for most of billionaires’ income sources.
“Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry].”
hence why they push so heavily for automation, it makes it possible to earn about the same profit while respecting human rights. (nobody has a right to a job)
Come on Disney! Use your god tier copyright lawyers and stop this AI shit for good.
I was thinking no fucking way this is the same Nick Clegg I’m thinking of, and then I read the description 💀
If it helps, he became a Facebook exec after losing his seat in the British Parliament.
A good example of the revolving door, but at least it wasn’t the other way around…
Sounds like a plan!
file under: “unsurprising capitalist takes”
If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.
Contrary to popular belief among useful idiots, copyright and patent laws are not there to protect the working class.
If copyright and patent laws actually protected workers, why have we not seen rulers fight back against them until now?
This should be eye-opening to most of you, but that would involve admitting you were wrong.
Most people can’t do that.
