In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.
I agree with google, only I go a step further and say any AI model trained on public data should likewise be public for all and have its data sources public as well. Can’t have it both ways Google.
I hope that too, but I’m less optimistic. We live in a capitalistic world.
Copyright law already allows generative AI systems to scrape the internet. You need to change the law to forbid something, it isn’t forbidden by default. Currently, if something is published publicly then it can be read and learned from by anyone (or anything) that can see it. Copyright law only prevents making copies of it, which a large language model does not do when trained on it.
An AI model is a derivative work of its training data and thus a copyright violation if the training data is copyrighted.
A human is a derivative work of its training data, thus a copyright violation if the training data is copyrighted.
The difference between a human and ai is getting much smaller all the time. The training process is essentially the same at this point, show them a bunch of examples and then have them practice and provide feedback.
If that human is trained to draw on Disney art, then goes on to create similar style art for sale that isn’t a copyright infringement. Nor should it be.
This is stupid and I’ll tell you why.
As humans, we have a perception filter. This filter is unique to every individual because it’s fed by our experiences and emotions. Artists make great use of this by producing art which leverages their view of the world, it’s why Van Gogh or Picasso is interesting because they had a unique view of the world that is shown through their work.
These bots do not have perception filters. They’re designed to break down whatever they’re trained on into numbers and decipher how the style is constructed so it can replicate it. It has no intention or purpose behind any of its decisions beyond straight replication.
You would be correct if a human’s only goal was to replicate Van Gogh’s style but that’s not every artist. With these art bots, that’s the only goal that they will ever have.I have to repeat this every time there’s a discussion on LLM or art bots:
The imitation of intelligence does not equate to actual intelligence.Absolutely agreed! I think if the proponents of AI artwork actually had any knowledge of art history, they’d understand that humans don’t just iterate the same ideas over and over again. Van Gogh, Picasso, and many others, did work that was genuinely unique and not just a derivative of what had come before, because they brought more to the process than just looking at other artworks.
Yup. There seems to be a strong motive in many to not understand this concept as it makes their practices clearly ethically questionable.
My feeling is that the vast majority of pro-AI techbros come from a computer science, finance, or business background; undoubtedly intelligent people, but completely and utterly lacking in any appreciation or understanding of what actually goes into creative work. I’m sure they genuinely believe that there’s no difference between what a human does and what an AI does, because they think art (or writing, music, etc) are just the product of an algorithm.
Ironically, my background is in mathematics but I also happen to be a writer so I see both sides of the argument. I just see the utter lack of compassion people have for those who produce creative work and the same people believe that if it can be automated, it should be automated.
Likely. Which is weird because algorithms are only a subset of software engineering, which requires abstract and creative thought to perform well.
I really, really, really wish people would understand this.
AI can only create a synthesis of exactly what it’s fed. It has no life experience, no emotional experience, no nurture-related experiences, no cultural experiences that color it’s thinking, because it isn’t thinking.
The “AI are only doing what humans do” is such a brain-dead line of thinking, to the point that it almost feels like it’s 100% in bad faith whenever it’s brought up.
this is stupid I’ll tell you why
Not sure why you think anyone would read anything if that’s how you start it.
You’re completely wrong, and I’ll tell you why.
None of what you said matters, perception filters, intent, intelligence… it’s all irrelevant to the discussion.
Copyright infringement only gives certain rights, and at least here in Canada using them to generate a model isn’t one of those. Rights are for things like distribution, reproduction, public performance, communication, and exhibition. US law says you can’t “Prepare derivative works based upon the work.” but the model isn’t a derivative work because it’s not really a work at all, you can’t even visually look at the model. You can’t copyright an algorithm in the US or Canada.
Only the created art should be scrutinized for copyright infringement, and these systems can generate both (just like a human can).
Any enforcement should then be handled when that protected work is then used to infringe on the actual rights of the copyright holder.
I wasn’t talking about copyright law in regards to the model itself.
I was talking about what is/isn’t grounds for plagiarism. I strongly disagree with the idea that artists and art bots go through the same process. They don’t and it’s reductive to claim otherwise. It negatively impacts the perception of artists’ work to assert that these models can automate a creative process which might not even involve looking at other artists’ work because humans are able to create on their own.
A person who has never looked upon a single painting in their life can still produce a piece but the same cannot be said for an art bot. A model must be trained on work that you want the model to be able to imitate.
This is why ChatGPT required the internet to do what it does (the privacy violation is another big concern there). The model needed vast quantities of information to be sufficiently trained because language is difficult to decipher. Languages evolved by getting in contact with other languages and organically making new words. ChatGPT will never invent a new word because it’s not intelligent, it is merely imitating intelligence.
“A person who has never looked upon a single painting in their life can still produce a piece but the same cannot be said for an art bot. A model must be trained on work that you want the model to be able to imitate.”
No, they really can’t. Go look a 1 year old’s first attempt at “art” because it’s nothing more than random smashing of colour on paper. A computer could easily generate such “work” as well with no training data at all. They’ve seen art at that point, and still can’t replicate it because they need much more training first.
Humans require books (or teachers who read books) to learn how to read and write. That is “vast quantities of information” being consumed to learn how to do it. If you had never seen or heard of a book, you wouldn’t be able to write a novel. It’s also completely ignoring the fact that you had to previously learn the spoken language as well (which is a vast quantity of information that takes a human decades to acquire proficiency in even with daily practice)
Once again, being reductive about artists’ work. Jackson Pollock’s entire career was smashing colours on a canvas. If you want to argue that Pollock had to look at thousands of paintings before making his, I honestly can’t take you seriously at that point.
A computer could easily generate such “work” as well with no training data at all.
Yes and in the eyes of its creators, that was deemed a failure which is why Midjourney and Dall-E are the way they are. These bots don’t want to create art, they want to imitate it.
Children have barely any experiences and can still create something. You might not deem it worthy of calling it art but they created something despite their limited knowledge and life experience.
Of course, you’d need books to read and write. The words have to be written and you need to see the words in written form if you also want to write them. But one thing you don’t take into account is handwriting. Another thing that is unique to every individual. Some have worse handwriting than others and with practice (like any muscle) it can be improved but you haven’t had to have seen handwritten text before writing it yourself. You only need to be taught how to hold a pen and you can write.
Novels are complex structures of language just like poetry. In order to write novels, you have to consume novels because it’s well understood that to find your own narrative voice you must see how others express theirs. Stories are told in unique ways and it’s crucial as a writer to understand and break these concepts down. Intention and purpose form a core part of storytelling and an LLM cannot and will not be able to express those things.
They’re written in certain ways because the author intended them to be that way, such as Cormac McCarthy deciding to be very minimalist with his punctuation.
I would love to see you make a point that an LLM without being specifically prompted to do so would make that stylistic decision. An LLM can’t make that decision because unless you specify a style it is aware of, it won’t organically do it.I am also a writer. I’ve written a short story. One of my stylistic choices is that I don’t use dialogue tags like “said”. An LLM won’t make that choice because it isn’t designed to do so, it won’t decide to minimise its use of dialogue tags to improve the flow of the narrative unless you told it to.
It’s also completely ignoring the fact that you had to previously learn the spoken language as well (which is a vast quantity of information that takes a human decades to acquire proficiency in even with daily practice).
Yes, in order to learn a spoken language you have to have heard it. However, languages evolve over time. You develop regional accents and dialects. All of the UK speaks English but no two towns speak the same way.
a human does not copy previous work exactly like these algorithms, whats this shit take?
A human can absolutely copy previous works, and they do it all the time. Disney themselves license books teaching you how to do just that. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/learn-to-draw-disney-celebrated-characters-collection-disney-storybook-artists/1124097227
Not to mention the amount of porn online based on characters from copyrighted works. Porn that is often done as a paid commission, expressly violating copyright laws.
Humans and AI are not the same and an equivalence should never be drawn.
Your feelings don’t really matter, the fact of the matter is that the goal of ai is literally to replicate the function of a human brain. The way we’re building them is often mimicking the same processes.
And LLMs and related technologies, by themselves, are artificial but not intelligent. So, the facts are not in favor of your argument to allow commercial parasitism on creative works.
I think you’re missing a point here. If someone uses these to models to produce and distribute copyright infringing works, the original rights holder could go after the infringer.
The model itself isn’t infringing though, and the process of creating the model isn’t either.
It’s a similar kind of argument to the laws that protect gun manufacturers from culpability from someone using their weapon to commit a crime. The user is the one doing the bad thing, they just produce a tool.
Otherwise, could Disney go after a pencil company because someone used one of their pencils to infringe on their copyright. Even if that pencil company had designed the pencil to be extremely good at producing Disney imagery by looking at a whole bunch of Disney images and movies to make sure it matches the size, colour, etc? No, because a pencil isn’t a copyright infringement of art, regardless of the process used to design it.
Nah. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Let’s get abstract:
Person A makes a living by making product X and selling it.
Person B makes a living by making product Y and selling it.
Both A and B are in the same industry.
Person C uses a machine to extract the essence of product X and Y and blend them. Person C then claims authorship and sells it as product Z, which they sell in competition to X and Y.
Person C has not created anything. Their machine does not have value in the absence of products X and Y, yet received no permission, offers no credit nor compensation. In addition, they are competing for the same customers and harming the livelihoods of A and B. Person C is acting in a purely parasitic manner that cannot be seen as ethical in any widely accepted definition of the word.
deleted by creator
The goal of AI is fictional, and there’s no solid evidence today that it will ever stop being fiction.
What at have today are stupid learning algorithms that are surprisingly good at mimicing intelligent people.
The most apt comparison today is a particularly clever parrot.
I’m all for having the discussion about how to handle AI when we have it, but it’s bad faith to apply it to what we have today.
Critically, what we have today will never ever go on strike, or really make any kind of correct moral decision on it’s own. We must treat it like dumb automation, because it is dumb automation.
the fact of the matter is that the goal of AI is literally to replicate the function of a human brain
…says who? That’s absolutely your feeling and not facts.
Derivative works are only copyright violations when they replicate substantial portions of the original without changes.
The entirety of human civilization is derivative works. Derivative works aren’t infringement.
That’s just not true
It absolutely is. There’s nothing out there in the past thousand years that isn’t based on other prior art, copyright law only replies to direct copies, and there are explicit cutouts past that that allow you to directly copy some things if your work is transformative.
It is not a derivative work, the model does not contain any recognizable part of the original material that it was trained on.
Except when it produces exact copies of existing works, or when it includes a recognisable signature or watermark?
deleted by creator
The point is that if the model doesn’t contain any recognisable parts of the original material it was trained on, how can it reproduce recognisable parts of the original material it was trained on?
That’s sorta the point of it.
I can recreate the phrase “apple pie” in any number of styles and fonts using my hands and a writing tool. Would you say that I “contain” the phrase “apple pie”? Where is the letter ‘p’ in my brain?Specifically, the AI contains the relationship between sets of words, and sets of relationships between lines, contrasts and colors.
From there, it knows how to take a set of words, and make an image that proportionally replicates those line pattern and color relationships.You can probably replicate the Getty images watermark close enough for it to be recognizable, but you don’t contain a copy of it in the sense that people typically mean.
Likewise, because you can recognize the artist who produced a piece, you contain an awareness of that same relationship between color, contrast and line that the AI does. I could show you a Picasso you were unfamiliar with, and you’d likely know it was him based on the style.
You’ve been “trained” on his works, so you have internalized many of the key markers of his style. That doesn’t mean you “contain” his works.Just because you can’t point to a specific part of your brain that contains the letter ‘p’ doesn’t mean it isn’t in there somewhere. If you didn’t contain the letter ‘p’, or Getty watermark, or Picasso’s work, you wouldn’t be able to recognise them when you saw them or tried to replicate them. The act of recognising something that is familiar is basically the brain comparing what the eye sees with what is stored in the memory. The brain stores it differently to an exact copy on a hard drive, but it does, nevertheless, contain everything that it remembers.
Ah, this old paper again. When it first came out it got raked over the coals pretty thoroughly. The authors used an older, poorly-trained version of Stable Diffusion that had been trained on only 160 million images and identified 350,000 images from the training set that had many duplicates and therefore could potentially be overfitted. They then generated 175 million images using tags commonly associated with those duplicate images.
After all that, they found 109 images in the output that looked like fuzzy versions of the input images. This is hardly a triumph of plagiarism.
As for the watermark, look closely at it. The AI clearly just replicated the idea of a Getty-like watermark, it’s barely legible. What else would you expect when you train an AI on millions of images that contain a common feature, though? It’s like any other common object - it thinks photographs often just naturally have a grey rectangle with those white squiggles in it, and so it tries putting them in there when it generates photographs.
These are extreme stretches and they get dredged up every time by AI opponents. Training techniques have been refined over time to reduce overfitting (since what’s the point in spending enormous amounts of GPU power to produce a badly-artefacted copy of an image you already have?) so it’s little wonder there aren’t any newer, better papers showing problems like these.
Nevertheless, the Getty watermark is a recognisable element from the images the model was trained on, therefore you cannot state that the models don’t spit out images with recognisable elements from the training data.
Take a close look at the “watermark” on the AI-generated image. It’s so badly mangled that you wouldn’t have a clue what it says if you didn’t already know what it was “supposed” to say. If that’s really something you’d consider “copyrightable” then the whole world’s in violation.
The only reason this is coming up in a copyright lawsuit is because Getty is using it as evidence that Stability AI used Getty images in the training set, not that they’re alleging the AI is producing copyrighted images.
I said “recognisable”, and it is clearly recognisable as Getty’s watermark, by virtue of the fact that many people, not only I, recognise it as such. You said that the models don’t use any “recognizable part of the original material that it was trained on”, and that is clearly false because people do recognise parts of the original material. You can’t argue away other people’s ability to recognise the parts of the original works that they recognise.
A lot of licensing prevents or constrains creating derivative works and monetizing them. The question is for example if you train an AI on GPL code, does the output of the model constitute a derivative work?
If yes, Github Copilot is illegal as it produces code that should comply to multiple conflicting license requirements. If no, I can write some simple AI that is “trained” to regurgitate its output on a prompt, and run a leaked copy of Windows through it, then go around selling Binbows and MSFT can’t do anything about it.
The truth is mostly between the two, this is just piracy, which always has been a gray area because of the difficulty of prosecuting it, previously because the perpetrators were many and hard to find, now it’s because the perpetrators are billion dollar companies with expensive lawyer teams.
You should read this.
To be honest I’m fine with it in isolation, copyright is bullshit and the internet is a quasi-socialist utopia where information (an infinitely-copyable resource which thus has infinite supply and 0 value under capitalist economics) is free and humanity can collaborate as a species. The problem becomes that companies like Google are parasites that take and don’t give back, or even make life actively worse for everyone else. The demand for compensation isn’t so much because people deserve compensation for IP per se, it’s an implicit understanding of the inherent unfairness of Google claiming ownership of other people’s information while hoarding it and the wealth it generates with no compensation for the people who actually made that wealth. “If you’re going to steal from us, at least pay us a fraction of the wealth like a normal capitalist”.
If they made the models open source then it’d at least be debatable, though still suss since there’s a huge push for companies to replace all cognitive labor with AI whether or not it’s even ready for that (which itself is only a problem insofar as people need to work to live, professionally created media is art insofar as humans make it for a purpose but corporations only care about it as media/content so AI fits the bill perfectly). Corporations are artificial metaintelligences with misaligned terminal goals so this is a match made in superhell. There’s a nonzero chance corporations might actually replace all human employees and even shareholders and just become their own version of skynet.
Really what I’m saying is we should eat the rich, burn down the googleplex, and take back the means of production.
deleted by creator
That’s fair, also congratulations. Idk if I would count that towards contributing to the internet though, since it’s all within their walled garden on their own terms. It’s helpful for people, but only insofar as it helps Google. 10 years ago I might be less critical since they were still in their “don’t be evil” phase and creating open source projects like Android left and right, something they’re evidently regretting now and trying to lock down using propriety core apps. It’s also worth noting Google’s AI employees authored “Attention is all you need”, the paper which laid the groundwork for modern Transformer-based LLMs, though that’s an architecture and not a full model or code.
Okay so I took back the means of production but it says it’s a subscription basis now
That’s late-stage capitalism for you – even revolution comes with a subscription fee
Probably shoulda read the Revolution TOS before clicking “I Agree”.
Or, if it was some non-profit doing the work for the good of everyone :')
If only there were some kind of open AI research lab lmao. In all seriousness Anthropic is pretty close to that, though it appears to be a public benefit corporation rather than a nonprofit. Luckily the open source community in general is really picking up the slack even without a centralized organization, I wouldn’t be surprised if we get something like the Linux Foundation eventually.
Copyright law is gaslighting at this point. Piracy being extremely illegal but then this kind of shit being allowed by default is insane.
We really are living under the boot of the ruling classes.
If you want “this kind of stuff” (by which I assume you mean the training of AI) to not be allowed by default, then you are basically asking for a world in which the only legal generative AIs belong to giant well-established copyright holders like Adobe and Getty. That path leads deeper underneath the boots of those ruling classes, not out from under them.
I don’t think it should be allowed to be trained off any of this stuff for entertainment/art/etc. at all. Like the dream future of AI was all the shitty boring stuff handled for us so we could sit back, chill and focus on arts, real scientific research, general individual betterment etc.
Instead we have these companies trying to get them doing all the art and interesting things whilst we all either have no job, money, or good standard of living, or the dangerous / shitty jobs.
So to avoid being “under the boot of the ruling classes” you want the government to be in charge of deciding what is and is not the correct way to produce our entertainment and art?
I use Stable Diffusiuon to generate illustrations for tabletop roleplaying game adventures that I run for my friends. I use ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas for those adventures and come up with dialogue or descriptive text. How big a fine would I be facing under these laws?
I mean there has to be a price to pay here, we can’t have our cake and eat it unfortunately. Caveats like “individual use” could allow this type of use while prevent companies taking the piss.
You seem to be implying that the government is the ruling class too, which (I grant you) may at least in part be the case but at least they’re voted into place. Would you rather have companies that we have no control over realistically use it without limit?
Honest question, what would you see as a fair way to handle the situation?
I mean there has to be a price to pay here,
Why, because you say so?
Would you rather have companies that we have no control over realistically use it without limit?
Yes, because that means I can also use it without limit. And I see no reason to apply special restrictions to AI specifically, companies are already bound by lots of laws governing their behaviour and ultimately it’s their behaviour that is what’s important to control.
Honest question, what would you see as a fair way to handle the situation?
Handle it the way we already handle it. People are allowed to analyze publicly available data however they want. Training an AI is just a special case of analyzing that data, you’re using a program to find patterns in it that the AI is later able to make use of when generating new material.
Why, because you say so?
This is just being obtuse and a bit of a cunt. You can’t expect not to have negative reprecusions as an affect of companies being allowed to just churn out as much AI generated shit as they can. Especially since you also say:
companies are already bound by lots of laws governing their behaviour and ultimately it’s their behaviour that is what’s important to control.
Please read what you’ve again but slowly this time. You’re saying you’re fine with all the other regulation, but it shouldn’t be done here cause of individual liberties when i’ve clearly stated free use can be specifically allowed for here…
Yes, because that means I can also use it without limit.
You’ve again stated your problem when i’ve given a more than sensible solution. Individual free use is fine, why would anyone want to stop you, individually or even with your friends, being creative? The problems comes when companies with huge resources, influence, and nefarious motives decide to use it. How about this time we get ahead of it instead of letting things get out of control then trying to do something about it?
This is just being obtuse and a bit of a cunt.
No, I’m seriously asking. You said that there has to be a price to pay, but I really don’t see why. Why can’t people be free to do these things? It doesn’t harm anyone else.
It’s reasonable to create laws to restrict behaviour that harms other people, but that requires the person proposing those laws to show that this is actually the case. And that the restrictions placed by those laws are reasonable and proportionate, not causing more harm than they prevent.
Individual free use is fine, why would anyone want to stop you, individually or even with your friends, being creative? The problems comes when companies with huge resources, influence, and nefarious motives decide to use it.
There is no sharp dividing line between these things. What if one of the adventures I create turns out so good that I decide to publish it? What if it becomes the basis for a roleplaying system that becomes popular enough that I start a publishing company for it?
The problems comes when companies with huge resources, influence, and nefarious motives decide to use it.
How about if one of those huge companies just wants to produce some entertainment that will sell really well and that I would enjoy?
You’re not really making an argument for banning AI, here. You’re making an argument for banning nefariousness. That’s fine, but that’s kind of a bigger separate issue.
The ruling class is seeing the end of capitalism. They’re getting desperate and making it obvious.
Books will start needing to add a robots.txt page to the back of the book
Which will be ignored by search engines, as is tradition?
… which was the style at the time.
OK, so I shall create a new thread, because I was harassed. Why bother publishing anything if it’s original if it’s just going to be subsumed by these corporations? Why bother being an original human being with thoughts to share that are significant to the world if, in the end, they’re just something to be sucked up and exploited? I’m pretty smart. Keeping my thoughts to myself.
This is a tendency I’ve heard that I haven’t been able to understand. What is the new risk of expressing your thoughts, prose, or poetry online that didn’t exist before and currently exists with LLMs scraping them? How would the corporations exploit your work through data scraping that would demotivate you to express it at all? Because I know tone doesn’t come accross well in text, I want to clarify that these are genuine questions because my answers to these questions seem to be very different than many and I’d like to understand where that difference in perspective comes from.
Worth considering that this is already the law in the EU. Specifically, the Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market has exceptions for text and data mining.
Article 3 has a very broad exception for scientific research: “Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 5(a) and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, and Article 15(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations and cultural heritage institutions in order to carry out, for the purposes of scientific research, text and data mining of works or other subject matter to which they have lawful access.” There is no opt-out clause to this.
Article 4 has a narrower exception for text and data mining in general: “Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Article 5(a) and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 15(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible works and other subject matter for the purposes of text and data mining.” This one’s narrower because it also provides that, “The exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply on condition that the use of works and other subject matter referred to in that paragraph has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online.”
So, effectively, this means scientific research can data mine freely without rights’ holders being able to opt out, and other uses for data mining such as commercial applications can data mine provided there has not been an opt out through machine-readable means.
I think the key problem with a lot of the models right now is that they were developed for “research”, without the rights holders having the option to opt out when the models were switched to for-profit. The portfolio and gallery websites, from which the bulk of the artwork came from, didn’t even have opt out options until a couple of months ago. Artists were therefore considered to have opted in to their work being used commercially because they were never presented with the option to opt out.
So at the bare minimum, a mechanism needs to be provided for retroactively removing works that would have been opted out of commercial usage if the option had been available and the rights holders had been informed about the commercial intentions of the project. I would favour a complete rebuild of the models that only draws from works that are either in the public domain or whose rights holders have explicitly opted in to their work being used for commercial models.
Basically, you can’t deny rights’ holders an ability to opt out, and then say “hey, it’s not our fault that you didn’t opt out, now we can use your stuff to profit ourselves”.
So at the bare minimum, a mechanism needs to be provided for retroactively removing works that would have been opted out of commercial usage if the option had been available and the rights holders had been informed about the commercial intentions of the project.
If you do this, you limit access to AI tools exclusively to big companies. They already employ enough artists to create a useful AI generator, they’ll simply add that the artist agrees for their work to be used in training to the employment contract. After a while, the only people who have access to reasonably good AI is are those major corporations, and they’ll leverage that to depress wages and control employees.
The WGA’s idea that the direct output of an AI is uncopyrightable doesn’t distort things so heavily in favor of Disney and Hasbro. It’s also more legally actionable. You don’t name Microsoft Word as the editor of a novel because you used spell check even if it corrected the spelling and grammar of every word. Naturally you don’t name generative AI as an author or creator.
Though the above argument only really applies when you have strong unions willing to fight for workers, and with how gutted they are in the US, I don’t think that will be the standard.
The solution to only big companies having access to AI by using enough artists to create a useful generator isn’t to deny all artists globally any ability to control their work, though. If all works can be scraped and added to commercial AI models without any payment to artists, you completely obliterate all artists except for the small handful working for Disney, Hasbro, and the likes.
AI models actually require a constant input of new human-made artworks, because they cannot create anything new or unique themselves, and feeding an AI content produced by AI ends up with very distorted results pretty quickly. So it’s simply not viable to expect the 99% of artists who don’t work for big companies to continuously provide new works for AI models, for free, so that others can profit from them. Therefore, artists need either the ability to opt out or they need to be paid.
(The word “artist” here is used to refer to everyone in the creative industries. Writing and music are art just like paintings and drawings are.)
Unfortunately, copyright protection doesn’t extend that far. AI training is almost certainly fair use if it is copying at all. Styles and the like cannot be copyrighted, so even if an AI creates a work in the style of someone else, it is extremely unlikely that the output would be so similar as to be in violation of copyright. Though I do feel that it is unethical to intentionally try to reproduce someone’s style, especially if you’re doing it for commercial gain. But that is not illegal unless you try to say that you are that artist.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0
Copyright law on this varies, actually! In the UK, “fair dealing” actually has an exclusion for using copyrighted material for the purpose of commercially competing with the creator. This also includes derivative works. This does therefore cover style to a certain extent, because works imitating a style of an artist are generally intended to commercially compete with them. From that perspective, taking an artist’s entire portfolio, feeding it into an AI, and producing work in their style at a lower price than the artist does (because an AI produces something in seconds which takes the artist weeks), is pretty obviously an attempt to compete with the artist commercially.
While people like to draw comparisons between AIs and humans copying another artist’s style, the big difference here is that a human artist needs to spend hundreds of hours learning to imitate another artist’s style, at the expense of developing their own style, while the original artist is also continually developing their style. It is bloody hard to imitate another human’s art style. But an AI can do it in minutes, and I haven’t yet seen any valid arguments for how that’s not intended to commercially compete with human artists on a massive scale.
True, I wrote this from a US law perspective, where that kind of behavior is expressly protected. US law is also written specifically to protect things like search engines and aggregators to prevent services like Google from getting sued for their blurbs, but it’s likely also a defense for AI.
Regardless of if it should be illegal or not, I feel that AI training and use is currently legal under current US law. And as a US company, dragging OpenAI to UK courts and extracting payment from them would be difficult for all but the most monied artists.
For the moment, US companies do actually care what the UK courts and regulatory bodies say, because the trifecta of US-UK-EU is what tends to form a base of what the rest of the world decides. It’s why Microsoft have been so unhappy about the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority initially blocking the merger with Blizzard: even with the US and EU antitrust bodies agreeing to it, it did actually matter if the UK didn’t agree (I am so disappointed in the CMA finally capitulating). And some of the lawsuits against the AI companies are taking place in the UK courts, with no indications that the AI companies are refusing to engage. Obviously at this point it’s hard to say what the outcome will be, but the UK legal system does actually have enough clout globally that it won’t be a meaningless result.
Practically you would have to separate model architecture from weights. Weights are licensed as research use only, while the architecture is the actual scientific contribution. Maybe some instructions on best train the model.
Only problem is that you can’t really prove if someone just retrained research weights or trained from scratch using randomized weights. Also certain alterations to the architecture are possible, so only the “headless” models are used.
I think there’s some research into detecting retraining, but I can imagine it’s not fool proof.
I kind of think that as proof-of-concepts, the AI models are kind of interesting. I don’t like the content they produce much, because it is just so utterly same-y, so I haven’t yet seen anything that made me go “wow, that’s amazing”. But the actual architecture behind them is pretty cool.
But at this point, they’ve gone beyond researching an interesting idea into full on commercial enterprises. If we don’t have an effective means of retraining the existing models to remove the data that isn’t licenced for commercial use (which is most of it), then it seems the only ethical way to move forward would be to start again with more selective training data, including only what is commercially licenced. Now the research has been done in how to create these models, it should be quicker to build new ones with more ethically sourced training data.
The standard needs to be opt-in, not opt-out. You can’t take people’s stuff without their permission. Just because they didn’t contact you and tell you directly that you’re not allowed to take their lawn ornaments doesn’t make them free.
Why not? Copyright is a monopoly. Generally society benefits from having it as weak as possible.
Google can go suck on a lemon!
This is like the beginning of a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where they put the responsibility on the main character to go to the department of transportation basement and see that they had posted a notice that they’re going to destroy his house. No Google, you don’t get to dictate that people come to your dark pattern website and tell you you’re not allowed to use their content. Disapproval is implied until people OPT-IN! It’s a good thing Google changed their motto from Don’t Be Evil or we’d have quite the conundrum.
Google is smoking that pack.
Me, twenty years ago: i wish the word web 2.0 could disappear forever
Me, like 8 years ago: i wish the word web 3.0 could disappear forever
Monkeys paw: 👆
AI, coming crashing through the window and blindsiding me upside the head: surprise bitch
deleted by creator
It’s not turning copyright law on its head, in fact asserting that copyright needs to be expanded to cover training a data set IS turning it on its head. This is not a reproduction of the original work, its learning about that work and and making a transformative use from it. An generative work using a trained dataset isn’t copying the original, its learning about the relationships that original has to the other pieces in the data set.
The lines between learning and copying are being blurred with AI. Imagine if you could replay a movie any time you like in your head just from watching it once. Current copyright law wasn’t written with that in mind. It’s going to be interesting how this goes.
Imagine being able to recall the important parts of a movie, it’s overall feel, and significant themes and attributes after only watching it one time.
That’s significantly closer to what current AI models do. It’s not copyright infringement that there are significant chunks of some movies that I can play back in my head precisely. First because memory being owned by someone else is a horrifying thought, and second because it’s not a distributable copy.
my head […] not a distributable copy.
There has been an interesting counter-proposal to that: make all copies “non-distributable” by replacing the 1:1 copying, by AI:AI learning, so the new AI would never have a 1:1 copy of the original.
It’s in part embodied in the concept of “perishable software”, where instead of having a 1:1 copy of an OS installed on your smartphone/PC, a neural network hardware would “learn how to be a smartphone/PC”.
Reinstalling, would mean “killing” the previous software, and training the device again.
Right, because the cool part of upgrading your phone is trying to make it feel like its your phone, from scratch. Perishable software is anything but desirable, unless you enjoy having the very air you breathe sold to you.
Well, depends on desirable “by whom”.
Imagine being a phone manufacturer and having all your users running a black box only you have the means to re-flash or upgrade, with software developers having to go through you so you can train users’ phones to “behave like they have the software installed”
It’s a dictatorial phone manufacturer’s wet dream.
Yes, that’s exactly my problem with it.
