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
72
Beiträge
45
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
if i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that's illegal. same thing.
On the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital.
If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
-
On the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital.
If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
well yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
-
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
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?
-
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?
Creation happened before intellectual property laws existed.
Creation happens that can be immediately copied with no compensation now, open source software is an example.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister's desk?
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
-
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
-
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
-
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.
