Generative AI claims to produce new language and images, but when those ideas are based on copyrighted material, who gets the credit? A new paper from Stanford University looks for answers.
I think the whole system needs a step back into public use and public domain. I’ve cursed the Mickey mouse protection act for ages, and limiting use for training at this scale is absurd. I see more harm in the intent of creating a model to collect and organize people’s personal information, not using media to train tools.
Apart from personal security issues, I think treating training as copyright infringement is absurd unless the model is shown to specifically reproduce a near exact copy of a work reliably and unintentionally. Intentionally reproducing any work with any tool is infringement irrelevant to the tool used. Are we going to ban robots from learning in any real world scenarios that contain brands or access to copyrighted content? It’s silly and egotistical.
If we are worried about existing artists maintaining their careers, that’s a different argument about the economy that will be relevant to more and more fields in the near future, and one we should already be working to solve. Although we’ll probably just allow the rich to reap all of the benefits of our technology and modern society, and the rest can find a more devalued job, or sell their soul to the rich as a footstool or ethical sellout, as has been the trend of the past fifty years. They can continue using their extra money to suppress opposition and increase advertising again.
The technology or information used for training isn’t the issue here.
I think the whole system needs a step back into public use and public domain. I’ve cursed the Mickey mouse protection act for ages, and limiting use for training at this scale is absurd. I see more harm in the intent of creating a model to collect and organize people’s personal information, not using media to train tools.
Apart from personal security issues, I think treating training as copyright infringement is absurd unless the model is shown to specifically reproduce a near exact copy of a work reliably and unintentionally. Intentionally reproducing any work with any tool is infringement irrelevant to the tool used. Are we going to ban robots from learning in any real world scenarios that contain brands or access to copyrighted content? It’s silly and egotistical.
If we are worried about existing artists maintaining their careers, that’s a different argument about the economy that will be relevant to more and more fields in the near future, and one we should already be working to solve. Although we’ll probably just allow the rich to reap all of the benefits of our technology and modern society, and the rest can find a more devalued job, or sell their soul to the rich as a footstool or ethical sellout, as has been the trend of the past fifty years. They can continue using their extra money to suppress opposition and increase advertising again.
The technology or information used for training isn’t the issue here.