I mean honestly this AI era is the time for these absurd anti-piracy penalties to be enforced. Meta downloads libgen? $250,000 per book plus jail time to the person who’s responsible.
Oh but laws aren’t for the rich and powerful you see!
Always have been. Jpeg
hello yes I’m an ai company. let me torrent all the things pls thank you
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.
Zuck would be a hit and runner…
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.
Maybe in some weird countries.
Torrent means you download and also upload to others when you have some parts.
Kind of.
You can set your upload limit to 0 and not seed anything while still downloading.
Downloading is still 100% illegal in the US, though. However it’s up to the copyright holders to pursue criminal penalties, which I’m surprised isn’t happening with facebook.
Everyone who has evidence that facebook illegally downloaded their copyrighted material has a case to bring before a court.
No, not really. First of all, you can disable uploads. Second, you can use a seed box hosted in a country which doesn’t prosecute uploaders. So, you can be clean for all legal intents and purposes.
Technically it was never illegal in the US to download copywritten content. It was illegal to distribute them. That was literally Meta’s defence in court: they didn’t seed any downloads.
they didn’t seed any downloads
So Meta, 100% leeching.
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
My mind is AI and I need this content to train it.
I’m not sure if my brain counts as artificial, but with all the microplastics, it sure ain’t organic.
Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.
One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
You know I am somewhat of a large language model myself.
At this rate we will get access to more rights if we can figure out a way to legally classify ourselves as AI.
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
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?
AI stans always say stuff like this, but it doesn’t make sense to me at all.
AI does not learn the same way that a human does: it has no senses of its own with which to observe the world or art, it has no lived experiences, it has no agency, preferences or subjectivity, and it has no real intelligence with which to interpret or understand the work that it is copying from. AI is simply a matrix of weights that has arbitrary data superimposed on it by people and companies.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
If you are then you must know that the things you create are certainly indirectly influenced by SOME of the things that you have experienced (be it walking around on a sunny day, your favorite scene from your favorite movie, the lyrics of a song, etc.), AS WELL AS your own unique and creative persona, your own ideas, your own philosophy, and your own personal development.
Look at how an artist creates a painting and compare it to how generative AI creates a painting. Similarly, look at how artists train and learn their craft and compare it to how generative AI models are trained. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
(And that’s still ignoring the obvious corporate element and the four pillars of fair use consideration (US law, not UK, mind you). For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.)
Just say you’re a disc Majors shill lmao. This is Metallica vs Napster all over again
Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
Generative AI uses artificial neural networks, which are based on how we understand brains to connect information (Biological neural networks). You’re right that they have no self generated input like humans do, but their sense of making connections between information is very similar to that of humans. It doesn’t really matter that they don’t have their own experiences, because they are not trying to be humans, they are trying to be as flexible of a ‘mind’ as possible.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
I see anti-AI people say this stuff all the time too. Because it’s a convenient excuse to disregard an opposing opinion as ‘doesn’t know art’, failing to realize or respect that most people have some kind of creative spark and outlet. And I know it wasn’t aimed at me, but before you think I’m dodging the question, I’m a creative working professionally with artists and designers.
Professional creative people and artists use AI too. A lot. Probably more than laypeople, because to use it well and combine it with other interesting ideas, requires a creative and inventive mind. There’s a reason AI is making it’s way all over media, into movies, into games, into books. And I don’t mean as AI slop, but well-implemented, guided AI usage.
I could ask you as well if you’ve ever studied programming, or studied psychology, as those things would all make you more able to understand the similarities between artificial neural networks and biological neural networks. But I don’t need a box to disregard you, the substance of your argument fails to convince me.
At the end of the day, it does matter that humans have their own experiences to mix in. But AI can also store much, much more influences than a human brain can. That effectively means for everything it makes, there is less of a specific source in there from specific artists.
For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.
Fair use considerations do not apply to works that are so substantially different from any influence, only when copyrighted material is directly re-used. If you read Harry Potter and write your own novel about wizards, you do not have to credit nor pay royalties to JK Rowling, so long as it isn’t substantially similar. Without any additional laws prohibiting such, AI is no different. To sue someone over fair use, you typically do have to prove that it infringes on your work, and so far there have not been any successful cases with that argument.
Most negative externalities from AI come from capitalism: Greedy bosses thinking they can replace true human talent with a machine, plagiarists that use it as a convenient tool to harass specific artists, scammers that use it to scam people. But around that exists an entire ecosystem of people just using it for what it should be used for: More and more creativity.
You picked the wrong thread for a nuanced question on a controversial topic.
But it seems the UK indeed has laws for this already if the article is to believed, as they don’t currently allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material (As per the article). As far as I know, in some other jurisdictions, a normal person would absolutely be allowed to pull a bunch of publicly available information, learn from it, and decide to make something new based on objective information that can be found within. And generally, that’s the rationale AI companies used as well, seeing as there have been landmark cases ruled in the past to not be copyright infringement with wide acceptance for computers analyzing copyrighted information, such as against Google, for indexing copyrighted material in their search results. But perhaps an adjacent ruling was never accepted in the UK (which does seem strange, as Google does operate there). But laws are messy, and perhaps there is an exception somewhere, and I’m certainly not an expert on UK law.
But people sadly don’t really come into this thread to discuss the actual details, they just see a headline that invokes a feeling of “AI Bad”, and so you coming in here with a reasonable question makes you a target. I wholly expect to be downvoted as well.
Oh are we giving AI the same rights as humans now? On what grounds?
I never claimed that in this case. As I said in my response: There have been won lawsuits that machines are allowed to index and analyze copyrighted material without infringing on such rights, so long as they only extract objective information, such as what AI typically extracts. I’m not a lawyer, and your jurisdiction may differ, but this page has a good overview: https://blog.apify.com/is-web-scraping-legal/
EDIT: For the US description on that page, it mentions the US case that I referred to: Author’s Guild v Google
You might not remember but decades ago Microsoft was almost split in two. But then it came to pass that George Bush “won” the elections. And the case was dismissed.
In the US justice system, money talks.
Oh I agree money talks in the US justice system, but as the page shows, these laws also exist elsewhere, such as in the EU. And even if I or you don’t agree with them, they are still the case law that determines the legality of these things. For me that aligns with my ethical stance as well, but probably not yours.
I know they exist outside the US. I’m European. But there are too many terms of use that say that in case of problems they go to courts in the US that they will do everything on their hand to do the sameifn this case.
What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?
AI doesn’t copy things anymore than a person copies them by attending a concert or museum.
This is such a bizarre rejection of reality
No it isn’t.
Yeah this scum probably downloaded a few cars back in the days
Sigh, more censorship.
We need better communities that let people decide for themselves what they get to see.
Totally agree. This kind of crap started happening after the great reddit exodus of 23. Shitty reddit mods made their way to lemmy and this is what we get.
If you wanna see something cool just type the word “trans” into your comment and watch the downvotes come in!
Keep an eyeball on this comment! You’ll see!
This is 100% correct. You can downvote this person all you want but their not wrong!
A painter doesn’t own anything to the estate of Rembrandt because they took inspiration from his paintings.
So if you take away all the copywrited training data then it makes the same images?
No. And that’s the point…
So if it can’t function properly without other people’s work deciding what the art will look like that’s called copying.
If human beings get shit for copying famous art or tracing we need to hold AI to the same standard.
Copy
- noun a. an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (such as a letter, a painting, a table, or a dress) b. one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression c. matter to be set especially for printing; also: something considered printable (such as an advertisement or news story)
- verb a. to make a copy or copies of b. to model oneself on c. to transfer (data, text, etc.) from one location to another, especially in computing
I can’t believe I just had to provide you with a definition of the word copy.
Are you freaking serious!!!
Being inspired by and creating an original production is not the same as copying if that original work is inspired by other artists!!!
By your definition of copying because Elvis Presley was inspired by Muddy Waters they made the exact same music!
LLMs don’t produce copyrighted material they take inspiration from the training data so to speak. They create original productions.
In the same way that you can envision the Mona Lisa in your head but you couldn’t paint it by hand.
You know copying literal brushstrokes and traces identifiable from real artists is different than being inspired, it’s amazing the level of denial you cultists will self induce to keep it making sense.
Your god is not valuable enough to give more rights than human beings. Sorry
I don’t care what techbro conmen told you.
AI will never be a replacement for actual creativity, and is already being legislated against properly in civilized countries.
You need to learn how your god functions.
If it needs training data then it is effectively copying the training data.
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
Edit: if you’re going to downvote me, can you explain why? I am not saying AI is a good thing here. I’m just asking for evidence that it’s universally disliked, i.e. there aren’t a lot of fans. It seems there are lots of people coming to the defense of AI in this thread, so it clearly isn’t universally disliked.
Because overall people don’t like it, particularly when it comes to creating “art.”
I am aware of a lot of people who are very gung-ho about AI. I don’t know if anybody has actually tried to make a comprehensive survey about people’s disposition toward AI. I wouldn’t expect Lemmy to be representative.
I don’t know the rest but I hate the spending of resources to feed the AI datacenters. It’s not normal building a nuclear powerplant to feed ONE data center.
You’ve explained your personal opinion, and while I think it’s a sensible opinion, I was asking about the universal opinion on AI. And I don’t think there is a consensus that it’s bad. Like I don’t even understand how that’s controversial – everywhere you look, people are talking about AI in broadly mixed terms.
Because pretty much nobody wants it or likes it.
That’s just not true, chatgpt & co are hugely popular, which is a big part of the issue.
Nazism was hugely popular in Germany in the early 20th century, but was it a good thing?
You do realize the root of this thread was this question, right?
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
In the early 20th century, Nazism was not a universally regarded negative.
Analogies are fallacies. All they do is reveal that you can’t argue the merits of the topic at hand, so you need to derail and distract by pivoting to something else.
Now we need to debate the accuracy of your analogy, which is never 1:1, instead of talking about what we were talking about previously.
You’re also arguing with the wrong person. You should be talking to the person who argued “AI is a negative because pretty much nobody likes it” instead of the person who says it’s not true that “nobody likes it.”
You’re literally only looking for an angle to shit on AI so you can fit in with the average idiots.
AI discussion at this point are litmus tests for who is average that lets other average people do their thinking for them. It really puts into perspective how much popular opinion should be scrutinized.
Hugely popular, mostly with a bunch of dorks nobody likes that much.
People are getting the message now, but when it first came out, there were so many posts about what ChatGPT had to say about the topic, and the posters never seemed to understand why nobody cared.
I want it and I like it. I’ve been using llms for years now with great benefit to myself.
Like any tool one just needs to know how to use them. Apparently you don’t.
I think you’re mistaken – there are a large number of people who vehemently dislike it, why is probably why you think that.
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
I identify as an AI company ☠️
no no, i mean people should actually start utilizing this bullshit. Anyone can start a company and with some technical knowhow you can add somekind of ai crap to it. companies dont have to make profit or anything useful so there is no pressure to do anything with it.
But if it comes to copyright law not applying to ai companies, why should some rich assholes be only ones exploiting that? It might lead to some additional legal bullshit that excludes this hypotetical kind of ai company, but that would also highlight better that the law benefits only the rich.
No more ads on youtube
Oh good I see Labour are dealing with the real issues in society.
Modern Labour and not giving a fuck about workers, name a more iconic duo.
- There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
- What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
- Does this put Reddit in a new light? Free content to users but charging for the api to do bulk download such as for ai?
Search is very different to create something.
In this context they’re identical - some automated process looking at all your content. While some of these agents may be honest, there’s no real distinction from search or ai or archive.
They are just illegally selling us off as slaves. That is what is happening. All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs, clamping down on this behavior.
All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs
We’re all too busy playing fortnite and watching marvel movies.
I’m planning food and will share. Problem is, well…
Disband Copyright
Either get rid of copyright for everything and everyone, or don’t.
But no stupid BULLSHIT exception for AI slop.
The solution is to get rid of copyright and patent laws.
They do not benefit the working class and anyone who tells you otherwise is a useful idiot.
I wonder how they decided which artist to include in the thumbnail image.
Moneys decided it. No one is going to click on a image for a old wrinkly white guy
A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.
Good. Copyright and patent laws need to die.
All the money wasted enforcing them and taken from customers could be better spent on other things.
Creators will still create, as they always have. We just won’t have millionaire scumbags such as ‘paul mccartney’ living like kings while children starve.
Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, but make their living day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output, because they don’t get any revenue streams from it to begin with. Realistically they’re the people most of us should identify with, but instead we rally behind the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they represent us. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.
Yeah, but if the politicians don’t listen to hurt celebrities who then will they listen to? -The poors?
/s
Taylor swift is another one… She really fought them record labels lol
Good for her but she has no class solidarity with peasants anymore than the rest of owner class.
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.
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.
Absurd obscenities you spew my friend, the fact that an artist take influences from any kind of art form doesn’t mean the end result is not original and it is not intellectual property as that
Intellectual property is intellectual theft
Well another two idiots that I’ll never listen to. Hey Metallica isn’t alone now
It’s always the people that fear for their assets that want things to stay the same.
I find it interesting that people who were pro pirating, are now against AI companies using copyrighted materials.
Personally, I think copyright was a dumb concept and shouldn’t exist. It’s time we get rid of it.
You should tell these companies then, because after pirating all the copyrighted information they will absolutely push for IP protections for AI output.
Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with. I never said AI companies are good or that they should be allowed to do everything, just that the copyright issue is not the problem for me.
Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with.
Cool but that issue is not in play here. That is not even close to a mainstream position and none of the actual players in this are working towards that outcome. Taking one side of this on that basis is silly.
You can call me ‘silly’ if you want, I’ve been called worse :-D
Does it matter that a position is mainstream for defending it ? I haven’t taken any “sides” on the AI topic in this thread, just stated my opinions regarding the subject of intellectual property, which is very inconsequential, furthermore we are on lemmy, that is not mainstream either. Do we have to “take side” and be split on every topic, tribally defending our “side”, because the other side are obviously idiots ?
Slight difference between little Johny torrrenting the latest movie for personal use and an AI company doing it for commercial gain.
I’m an advocate of full copyleft mentality : free and open source for any use, including commercial. If I’m sharing my work then anyone can do anything with it, I’m not entirely sure about attribution yet though, probably a remnant of being raised in this society…
