Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa urge UK Prime Minister to rethink his AI copyright plans. A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.
Technology
97
Beiträge
51
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister's desk?
It's not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn't be the type of scam that it was.
Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.
-
well yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
Yup. I don't think training should be considered breaking copyright. Regurgitating though should.
There are examples of use cases besides the right now obvious one of LLMs "creating" "original" content.
One that comes to my mind is indexing books. Allowing for people to search for books based on a description.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
-
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.
-
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?
The original copyright law was created to protect authors from publishers. The current law is an abomination and should be removed.
-
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.
-
You've got the details a little wrong. The original two were the Whigs and the Tories, as you say. The Whigs became the Liberals who became the modern day Liberal Democrats, who still exist but haven't been in power outside of being a junior member of a coalition for a century. Tories became the Conservatives, who are still one of the major two and are regularly still called the Tories. There was a faction that broke away from the Whigs called the Liberal Unionists, who merged into the Conservatives, but they're separate from the Liberals. Labour is not a successor to either of them, though they did make some strategic agreements with the Liberals early on. In the early 1900s, Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties.
It is still consistently a two-party system. One of the historic parties got replaced and there is a stronger presence for minor parties than there is in the states (see especially the SNP in the past decade and the Tory-LibDem coalition in 2010), but still a two-party system
Thank you, I tried to condense it and may have condensed a little too hard aha
-
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.
-
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.
-
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
I identify as an AI company
️ -
This post did not contain any content.
AI really shows the absurdity of intellectual property as a concept, the very way we learn, every idea we can have, every mental image we can create is the sum of copying and adapting the things we perceive and ideas that have predated our own, you can see this from the earliest forms of art where simple shapes and patterns were transmuted and adapted into increasingly complex ones or through the influence of old innovations into new ones, for example the influence of automatons on weaving looms with punched pegs and their influence on babbage machines and eventually computers. IP is ontological incoherent for this reason you cannot "own" an idea so much as you can own the water of one part of a stream
-
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.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
-
AI really shows the absurdity of intellectual property as a concept, the very way we learn, every idea we can have, every mental image we can create is the sum of copying and adapting the things we perceive and ideas that have predated our own, you can see this from the earliest forms of art where simple shapes and patterns were transmuted and adapted into increasingly complex ones or through the influence of old innovations into new ones, for example the influence of automatons on weaving looms with punched pegs and their influence on babbage machines and eventually computers. IP is ontological incoherent for this reason you cannot "own" an idea so much as you can own the water of one part of a stream
I don't disagree with you, but AI companies shouldn't get an exclusive free pass.
-
I don't disagree with you, but AI companies shouldn't get an exclusive free pass.
Oh yes, I am not saying that at all. I am still very unsure on my views of AI from a precautionary standpoint and I think that its commercial use will lead to more harm than good but if these things are the closest analogs we have to looking at how humans learn and create it shows IP is ridiculous- I mean we do not even need them to see this, if an idea was purely and solely one person's property the idea of someone from the sentinel island (assuming they have not left and learnt oncology) inventing the cure for brain cancer is as likely as a team of oncologists at Oxford doing it.
-
That feels categorically different unless AI has legal standing as a person. We're talking about training LLMs, there's not anything more than people using computers going on here.
So then anyone who uses a computer to make music would be in violation?
Or is it some amount of computer generated content? How many notes? If its not a sample of a song, how does one know how much of those notes are attributed to which artist being stolen from?
What if I have someone else listen to a song and they generate a few bars of a song for me? Is it different that a computer listened and then generated output?
To me it sounds like artists were open to some types of violations but not others. If an AI model listened to the radio most of these issues go away unless we are saying that humans who listen to music and write similar songs are OK but people who write music using computers who calculate the statistically most common song are breaking the law.
-
It's not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn't be the type of scam that it was.
Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.
A company that makes negative income every quarter forever, and whose latest edition costs a magnitude more power and is worse than the previous, is worth between $150 Bn and $300 Bn. Many other competing companies equally overvalued.
These are businesses who are only valuable because people keep investing in them. A Ponzi Scheme.
-
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
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
