Apparently, stealing other people’s work to create product for money is now “fair use” as according to OpenAI because they are “innovating” (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,” wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit “misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.”

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    OpenAI are not going to make the source code for their model accessible to all to learn from

    OpenAI isn’t the only company doing this, nor is their specific model the knowledge that I’m referring to.

    The AI models are also never going to produce a solution to climate change that humans will accept.

    It is already being used to further fusion research beyond anything we’ve been able to do with standard algorithms

    We already know what the solution is, but nobody wants to hear it

    Then it’s not a solution. That’s like telling your therapist, “I know how to fix my relationship, my partner just won’t do it!”

    expecting anyone to listen to ChatGPT and suddenly change their minds about using fossil fuels is ludicrous

    Lol. Yeah, I agree, that’s never going to work.

    categorically does not need the entire contents of ArtStation in its training data.

    That’s a strong claim to make. Regardless of the ethics involved, or the problems the AI can solve today, the fact is we seeing rapid advances in AI research as a direct result of these ethically dubious models.

    In general, I’m all for the capitalist method of artists being paid their fair share for the work they do, but on the flip side, I see a very possible mass extinction event on the horizon, which could cause suffering the likes of which humanity has never seen. If we assume that is the case, and we assume AI has a chance of preventing it, then I would prioritize that over people’s profits today. And I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say I’m wrong.

    And then there’s the problem of actually enforcing any sort of regulation, which would be so much more difficult than people here are willing to admit. There’s basically nothing you can do even if you wanted to. Your Carlin example is exactly the defense a company would use: “I guess our AI just happened to create a movie that sounds just like Paul Blart, but we swear it’s never seen the film. Great minds think alike, I guess, and we sell only the greatest of minds”.

    • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Personally I think the claim that the entire contents of ArtStation will lead to working technology that fixes climate change is the bolder claim - and if there was any merit to it, there would be some evidence for it that the corporations who want copyright to be disapplied to artists would be able to produce. And if we’re saying that getting rid of copyright protections will save the planet, then perhaps Disney should give up theirs as well. Because that’s the reality here: we’re expecting humans to be obliterated by AI but are not expecting the rich and powerful to make any sacrifices at all. And art is part of who we are as a species, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years. Replacing artists with AI because somehow that will fix climate change is not only a massive stretch, but what would we even be saving humanity for at that point? So that everybody can slave away in insecure, meaningless work so the few can hoard everything for themselves? Because the Star Trek utopia where AI does all the work and humans can pursue self-enrichment is not an option on the table. The tech bros just want you to think it is.