[HN Gopher] Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?
___________________________________________________________________
Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?
Author : marban
Score : 71 points
Date : 2024-01-17 12:27 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| fredolivier0 wrote:
| surprise surprise
| pvaldes wrote:
| For context, I.P. here = Intelectual Property and not Internet
| Protocol address. You can save a click today.
| midasuni wrote:
| Is the answer "yes" or "no"?
|
| I suspect the actual answer is "those with wealth will continue
| to amass it and those without will struggle more"
| amelius wrote:
| Traditionally, rich people paid poor artists to obtain new
| artworks. In the future, they just click a button.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| This is actually not necessarily only a rich thing. There
| are numerous artists that will accept commissions and
| create something for you, unique to you, and it's not
| thousands of dollars.
|
| But your statement brings up (or at least makes me think
| of) what I think is an interesting point: there's the
| notion of mass media, which started when broadcasting
| became a thing. Play 1 recording via a method where
| potentially millions can hear or see it. It was after the
| development of broadcast technology that copyright
| maximalism took hold. IMHO the current IP regime is for
| that purpose, and cracks are showing in it because media is
| becoming more fragmented and more personalized. Would mass
| media ever become a thing of the past?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The article is quite long, but it seems to agree with your
| suspicions.
|
| Personally, I don't think this is sustainable. Once you make
| the injustice obvious, people will give-up on following the
| rule.
| shzhdbi09gv8ioi wrote:
| A: No [1]
|
| 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
| amelius wrote:
| I'm writing an article titled "Is Betteridge's law true?"
| waihtis wrote:
| the actual answer is "those who apply themselves will be fine
| and those who spend all their days wallowing in marxist
| fantasies will stay poor (both spiritually and monetarily)"
| 8jef wrote:
| I have not read the article, just responding to title:
|
| Hell yeah!
|
| I do wish I.P. dead. Or at least, I wish for a much shorter
| protection period, and for original authors / artists only. For
| all the wrong reasons, but primarily, because nothing's sacred.
| Amen.
| ImPleadThe5th wrote:
| Do intellectuals / creatives not deserve the fruits of their
| own labor?
|
| I get corporate IP is used for a lot of bad. But intellectuals
| and artists create a lot of value for society in ways that are
| very hard to monitize as a individual. If we completely kill IP
| what becomes of our authors, philopshipers, historians, artists
| etc.?
|
| They are already having it hard as it is with existing ip
| protections vs. big tech, big pharma, big record labels, etc.
| teddyh wrote:
| It's not that cut-and-dry:
|
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright>
|
| <http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht
| ...>
| 8jef wrote:
| Yes, you are right. But.
|
| People do abuse the protections, which are too lengthy, makes
| possible to sell rights, etc.
|
| In the end, corporations (ab)uses (buy and sell rights)
| protections for amassing fortunes much bigger than the
| original creator ever got. That's not right, not fair, at
| all. System's broken, need fix, throw it all out and build
| something new, centered around creators.
|
| Give back to creators only, for less time.
| ska wrote:
| Betteridge's law of headlines?
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| No!
| thot_experiment wrote:
| No subscription and archive.is is broken on 1.1 but it seems like
| the conversation is finally moving in a good direction.
|
| I'm very very tentatively hopeful that we might see some
| reduction of IP rights in my lifetime. It's going to be a long
| hard fight but maybe, just maybe we will see people wake the fuck
| up and realize how important the building up the fucking commons
| is to the progress of all humanity.
| __loam wrote:
| It's rich to see people talk about the commons like AI models
| aren't a massive tragedy of the commons.
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| Can you expand on that?
| __loam wrote:
| These models will discourage creative work. They exist at
| the expense of the people who made them possible.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| I assume you're referring to copyright. It could be argued
| copyright is a tragedy of the commons, the individual
| benefits at the expense of everyone else. Obviously it is
| intended that the wider impact of incentivising innovation
| will be beneficial to everyone, but that is not a sure thing,
| it is a compromise, a balancing act and that applies to AI
| too. The Luddites did lose their jobs after all.
| __loam wrote:
| Listening to people bash the luddites without understanding
| the actual history of the luddites is getting exhausting.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Please explain to me how baking all the art into a big tensor
| and then giving it away to everyone for free to run on any
| half decent GPU from the past 10 years is somehow anti-
| commons.
|
| Rent-seeking by controlling AI models is anti-commons, the
| models themselves are not, neither is training them. Don't
| delude yourself into thinking that Miyazaki didn't study
| Moebius didn't study Mucha. Even if you got your way and all
| training on copyrighted material was stopped today and all
| existing models were deleted it would only be a matter of
| time before we could synthesize arbitrary styles (at least as
| well as we can today) by identifying and controlling the
| correct axes in tensor space using a model purely informed by
| public domain data.
|
| Your art is mostly not yours, your art is mostly an
| amalgamation of other people's art which itself is also the
| same, all the way down. You are a sprinkling of flavor on
| top. Your art is stolen styles, techniques and vibes mashed
| together. And here you are, trapped arguing about where we
| draw the line on what's okay. 75 years? now 95? Look at what
| you're saying! Introspect and realize that your understanding
| of the context is defined by Disney and Bono wanting to
| collect rent on ideas. You're just focused on getting your
| crumbs of the pie in a game that's rigged to centralize power
| and keep it centralized.
| mplewis wrote:
| We all know that an artist studying the masters to make
| something original isn't the same as an autocomplete API
| picking the color of the next pixel. Come on, man.
| visarga wrote:
| > studying the masters to make something original
|
| original or "original"? maybe AI companies need to hire
| people to make "original" content for AI.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Whether or not those things are equivalent isn't relevant
| to any part of my point.
| __loam wrote:
| You equivocated them.
| bobthecowboy wrote:
| The jist of what you're saying is in the Free Culture
| movement/philosophy, I think, and it resonates with me as
| someone who does not like what AI has done with copyrighted
| works but also dislikes copyright.
|
| The "rent-seekers" is the problem. We collectively inherit
| and own our shared culture, but large corporations have
| always wanted to sell it back to us. AI companies are
| arguing they should have no limitations on their usage of
| the culture, but that the same shouldn't apply to them.
| Selling tickets to the commons is anti-commons.
|
| Perhaps if these companies were themselves arguing for the
| end of copyright and IP _for everyone_ , the conversation
| would be different.
| visarga wrote:
| I think copyright lawsuits against AI companies will
| force them to develop attribution models. They will do
| the work of indexing all ideas to their authors. This
| will also reveal what is common knowledge, and who
| borrowed from who without attribution.
|
| In order to make attribution models we need
| text+author+timestamp. We can get that from books,
| newspaper articles, scientific papers and social network
| posts. Then we extend to the rest of the training set.
|
| But then we can also make AI models that cleverly avoid
| infringement while the same strict checking is going to
| be applied to human made content. Humans are not that
| good at avoiding pitfalls.
| jwells89 wrote:
| Right, I think we'd be having a very different
| conversation if products of AI could not be sold (what's
| taken for free must be given for free and free for others
| to use as they see fit). Companies will fight this tooth
| and nail though because that flushes any prospective
| profit produced by firing humans down the drain.
| __loam wrote:
| > Even if you got your way and all training on copyrighted
| material was stopped today and all existing models were
| deleted it would only be a matter of time before we could
| synthesize arbitrary styles (at least as well as we can
| today) by identifying and controlling the correct axes in
| tensor space using a model purely informed by public domain
| data.
|
| Do it then.
|
| > Your art is mostly not yours, your art is mostly an
| amalgamation of other people's art which itself is also the
| same, all the way down. You are a sprinkling of flavor on
| top. Your art is stolen styles, techniques and vibes mashed
| together.
|
| Eat shit. People deserve to have some ownership over the
| product of their labor. Imagine doing all that work to
| learn all these skills and some rat fuck nerd tells you
| they have the right to alienate you from that work, making
| some greasy fucking argument that the multi-billion dollar
| program they made is doing the same thing you do.
|
| Corporate abuse of copyright isn't an excuse for corporate
| abuse of people who can actually make things.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| The tragedy of the commons relates to deletable resources,
| such as grass feed for livestock. How's that relevant to ML
| models that _create_ content /resources about as fast as most
| can think? What's being depleted?
| __loam wrote:
| Qualifying this statement by saying this is something I've
| thought about and this is my own bullshit theory.
|
| There's a limited amount of "attention" on the internet
| that's available in online art spaces. I theorize that
| artists need to maintain a public portfolio to find work,
| either creative work for advertising or entertainment
| companies or commissions or patreon subscription. You need
| to be out there for people to hire you if you want to make
| a living doing art.
|
| AI art is disruptive and harmful to that ecosystem in a few
| ways. It competes with artists not only for dollars and
| jobs for commercial art (ie ad agency work), but more
| fundamentally it competes with artists for attention on the
| internet, which at a macro scale makes it so there's less
| money in the system for real artists to practice and master
| their skills. It's also not necessarily that the AI art is
| better, it's just good enough to pollute the signal to
| noise ratio. And as you said, it's fast. That can quickly
| overwhelm sites like DeviantArt or Art Station, which moves
| those communities and resources away from their original
| purpose.
|
| Additionally, AI art models need data from the commons to
| function. I'm skeptical that synthetic data is good enough
| to use for improving these models, so theoretically, one of
| the main ways to improve these models is getting more and
| better data from humans. If the economy of these models is
| structured in a way that discourages artists from posting
| their work publicly, or working at all, then the pace of
| improvement decreases. I think a lot of artists are pretty
| pissed off that their work is being used to produce
| commercial software that creates substitutes for their work
| without their permission or knowledge.
|
| So that's what I mean by the tragedy of the commons. The
| online art ecosystem is more fragile than many people think
| it is and ai companies are over exploiting it. The content
| remains but the thing you're actually trying to sample,
| human knowledge and skill, withers on the vine.
| foobiekr wrote:
| Let's see how software people feel when it becomes routine to
| AI wash projects to de-license them.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| That's bad, but the problem there isn't the AI.
| vdaea wrote:
| As a software person that feels great.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Software people here, we dont want ai people to steal our
| open source code, hide it behind closed models, and sell it
| without attribution or other terms respected.
|
| Many in the software world are in awe how much theft ai
| people do.
| visarga wrote:
| Open generative models are to open source what open source
| is to closed source - an even deeper level of openness,
| customisability and accessibility. Like open source they
| empower their users, are private and easy to adapt. Most of
| the time you just need to prompt, other times you apply a
| fine-tuning tool, which is also open source.
|
| I really don't understand open source people combating
| generative AI. I've never seen this ethos since the
| javascript framework wars. Take a look at llama.cpp, ollama
| and vllm repos and their friends. They got such a sustained
| rate of development and participation.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Is that from the perspective of a reader of novels or a writer
| of novels? Readers love free stuff.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| When it costs zero to produce a copy of a novel is the moral
| choice to create artificial scarcity to preserve it's value
| in our current system of value assignment, or is the moral
| choice to fight to change and improve the system to more
| align with the reality that novels exist in a post-scarcity
| world?
|
| Do we really want to deny people something that costs nothing
| in order to preserve the status quo? Perhaps it's the system
| of value assignment that's broken.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Novels don't exist in a post scarcity world because their
| writers still need money to live.
|
| I'm not necessarily opposed to moving to a post scarcity
| model without IP, but we need to actually be post scarcity
| first.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Does that mean novel writing would only be for those who
| are already independently wealthy? How would that actually
| work?
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I'm not claiming to have worked out how to make this all
| function. I'm just pointing out that the cost of
| duplicating a novel approaches zero and the assumption
| that the way we're assigning value is the only one that
| works leads to a world where we must deny people things
| they could have in order to preserve their value. This
| does not seem morally correct to me. I do not need to
| have a solution in order to identify a problem. Perhaps
| we could make strides toward a future where you don't
| need to be independently wealthy to write a novel by
| having some sort of a UBI scheme.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > I do not need to have a solution in order to identify a
| problem
|
| I'm the only one who's identified a problem. You haven't.
| Production costs aren't the only type of cost.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| I wonder if traditional novels have been out-paced by free
| online texts that people write in their free time (fan-fics
| and/or original-fics) ? It'd be interesting to crunch the
| numbers. Productivity is enormous, though quality isn't
| always as high. Of course with sufficient monkeys on
| keyboards, there's bound to be a few Shakespeares out
| there.
| visarga wrote:
| We have had more content that we can chew for 25 years, all
| accessible through search. Yes, we love it. But it's nothing
| new. We don't need AI to have good, free stuff to read.
| naet wrote:
| It can end up being bad for both readers and writers in the
| long term.
|
| If writers aren't able to find profit in writing then there
| will be less people spending the time and effort to produce
| good writing, which in turn means less quality material for
| readers to read (and, as an aside, less quality material for
| an AI to train on in the future).
|
| We could arguably reach some type of feedback loop where less
| quality writing leads to less interest in reading, which
| leads to smaller reading audiences, which leads to less
| quality writing being produced, etc.
|
| People do love free stuff, but free stuff often isn't
| sustainable under our current economic system.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > free stuff often isn't sustainable under our current
| economic system
|
| I disagree - some people live their whole lives on benefits
| or similar entitlements. That's an incredible economic
| achievement, as well as being a brilliant show of hard work
| by the net contributors.
| gustavus wrote:
| Intellectual property isn't.
| chefandy wrote:
| The problem is that our society has no other viable widespread
| mechanism to support the many millions of people who do
| intellectual work, and lots of intellectual work is really
| important for our society-- far more important than would make
| sense to relegate to hobbyists and volunteers. And this is
| coming from someone who's contributed well over 10k coding
| hours to FOSS software.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _The problem is that our society has no other viable
| widespread mechanism to support_
|
| Except, of course, UBI.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| We don't have that. Maybe we should, but we don't.
| chefandy wrote:
| Yep. Order of operations matters. This isn't a
| theoretical "future problem" for a lot of people.
| falcolas wrote:
| Yup. It accounts for some 41% of the US' GDP, and a minimum of
| 47 million jobs. It's also growing at a fairly fast rate.
|
| That's too much money for anybody in charge to let die. They're
| much more likely to nuke AI.
| chefandy wrote:
| > minimum of 47 million jobs
|
| What would you propose the US workforce did with some 47
| million knowledge workers with suddenly useless skills if you
| removed the only widespread economic mechanism our society
| has to support them?
| falcolas wrote:
| In my Star Trek-esque ideal world, post-scarcity sharing of
| the resources required to live.
|
| Realistically, it's a part of the reason IP is "too big to
| fail". The fallout would effectively destroy the US.
| chefandy wrote:
| Yeah but we need the Star Trek society _first_. In
| principle, I absolutely agree that IP is bullshit. The
| problem that many people in the "smash IP" camp tend to
| ignore is that people needing to eat, have a place to
| live, not having a stage 1 cancer diagnosis be an instant
| death sentence, and things like that aren't merely
| "regrettable collateral damage" on the road to freeing
| data.
|
| I've encountered many people over the years that hardline
| shit like that--they're almost exclusively middle to
| upper middle class suburbanites that are edge lording
| that stuff to subconsciously quiet their deep-seated
| insecurities about how incredibly soft their
| comparatively unchallenged existence has made them.
| dventimi wrote:
| https://archive.ph/2024.01.16-221827/https://www.newyorker.c...
| pessimizer wrote:
| I think so. Not just because of copyrights as the article covers,
| because the people who want to abuse copyright for A.I. and the
| people who own copyrights are basically the same people. They
| will simply cross-license and lock normal people out of using the
| products of A.I. by wielding that licensing against individuals.
|
| The real reason is that anybody can do A.I. and it can't be very
| patent-encumbered, being a number of abstract mathematical
| techniques. If it becomes an absurdly productive technology, you
| won't easily be able to keep people from using it in private.
| Maybe the real Butlerian Jihad will be the government Office of
| A.I. Copyright Royalties sending agents and their silicon-
| sniffing dogs to kick in people's doors following rumors of
| Aggravated Infringement.
|
| Maybe it will be what finally gets general purpose computers
| banned?
| deadbabe wrote:
| In a world where general purpose computers are banned, would
| there be some kind of underground speakeasy type computer labs?
| jerf wrote:
| No, it will result in a strengthening. It raises the value of
| things previous unprotectable, and thus will raise the incentive
| to get them protected. The Wild West of the AI world today will
| rapidly get captured because by the time you've amassed the
| resources to put up a credible AI, you're already a fairly large
| corporation. The scale of time necessary to get new protections
| passed is roughly comparable to the scale of time it will take
| for these companies to become owned one way or another by
| existing interests.
|
| The good news is that this probably still won't much affect your
| personal projects or anything. Anything you can already self-host
| and do today isn't going anywhere and you've probably got at
| least another two or three generations in this fast-moving space
| before the law clamps down. It is likely that many of the
| referenced AI aspects will be essentially "solved" before then,
| such as voice cloning. They aren't going to go after every last
| little AI user for every last thing because that's squeezing
| blood from a stone and not cost-effective. But don't plan on
| building a multi-million-subscriber YouTube channel out of it.
|
| And if you are interested in the freedom to do things the
| copyright owners don't want you to do, be sure to self-host and
| archive as much as possible. The ability to do this on platforms
| others host is going to disappear rapidly, if it isn't already.
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| This is a really interesting take, but I don't completely buy
| it. Traditionally technologies like these become more
| accessible with time. Take the youtube example, this is
| actually a really good counterpoint as if you can create videos
| with an AI you created, nobody has any way of figuring out that
| you trained it on so-and-so's IP. It's completely black box
| which is the direction things are probably going to go IMO.
|
| On the other hand, this is problematic because it'll slow down
| the development of the self-hostable models outside of the
| community moving to a darkweb like model where they stay beyond
| the reach of the legal system.
| jerf wrote:
| One of the big factors is whether or not AI can stay in the
| hands of the public or if it recedes into levels of hardware
| that only companies can own. If the latter, then the control
| will win.
|
| Keeping AI performance workable on personal-level hardware is
| going to be a big deal. Open source work on keeping
| performance at that level may be long-term more important
| that this or that feature.
|
| Watch out for calls for AI ethics to turn into calls for
| controls on hardware capable of running AI. I'm half
| surprised we aren't already hearing calls for that. I
| wouldn't be surprised to see it by the end of the year,
| though my expectation would be at least next year if not the
| one after. The real goal behind hardware control will be this
| sort of thing (though copyright control may actually be a
| secondary concern versus just keeping the really good tools
| out of the hands of the plebs), not AI ethics. (The elites
| know AI ethics limitations have no meanings as they have no
| intention of limiting themselves.)
| gooob wrote:
| everyone already has computers that can "run AI". would be
| pretty ridiculous if some law was passed and everyone's
| computers were confiscated. that would be like a
| lobotomization of society. a very stupid and short-sited
| move i think.
| visarga wrote:
| > One of the big factors is whether or not AI can stay in
| the hands of the public or if it recedes into levels of
| hardware that only companies can own. If the latter, then
| the control will win.
|
| Both will win. As corporations will make more and more
| advanced models, training data generated by their models
| will uplift open models. They only lag a few months. We
| already can shrink most of chatGPT's abilities in a 7B
| model. All open models trained after 2022 are benefiting
| from their big brothers. It's too easy to exfiltrate skills
| from proprietary models.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| It's been dead a while because of big tech. YouTube, Google,
| Facebook, Twitter - they have no way of effectively managing IP
| and so you basically see people's stolen content and they
| monetise it, so <shrug>
|
| TBF Napster and torrents are another and earlier angle.
|
| Purely IMO, big tech normalised the taking of other people's
| content, and it's getting to the point where content creators (as
| in, ones that are capable of producing unique content, not
| wealthy YouTubers per se) have simply had enough. The idea of
| authorities and primary sources is rapidly diminished with the
| hodge podge we have to navigate through in information discovery.
| ronsor wrote:
| > big tech normalised the taking of other people's content
|
| This was normalized by large media companies long before big
| tech.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Do you have examples? Obviously it's hard to compare scales
| though.
| jachee wrote:
| Record labels spring immediately to mind.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| Any case where a small player cannot effectively defend
| patents they hold, but at any time, can be sued for
| infringement and cannot effectively defend themselves
| either.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| @TuringNYC and @jachee
|
| What had sprung to mind for me was the wholesale rip off of
| European IP by the US in its commercial development in the
| 19th century and China now with the US.
|
| I guess what I'm thinking of is at the individual level, no
| one cares much for re-appropriating someone elses work. It
| has been normalised.
| pjmorris wrote:
| "Everything is free now
|
| That's what they say
|
| Everything I ever done
|
| Gonna give it away
|
| Someone hit the big score
|
| They figured it out
|
| That we're gonna do it anyway
|
| Even if it doesn't pay"
|
| - 'Everything is Free', Gillian Welch, 2001
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Ah
|
| "No one's gonna notice if you're never right or wrong
|
| And if you and your next neighbour, yeah, ya don't quite
| get along
|
| No one's gonna notice if you're singing anyway
|
| Those not coming in for free will learn they gotta pay"
|
| Ian Brown, 2004.
| willmadden wrote:
| The pharmaceutical industry continues as a giant, blood
| sucking, vampire squid because of IP.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| > The pharmaceutical industry continues as a giant, blood
| sucking, vampire squid because of IP.
|
| Let's be honest here. In order to get that way, they needed
| to stomp out and eradicate every trace of "evidence" that
| natural medicine was efficacious, because herbs, botanicals,
| and other natural substances can't be patented, can't be
| synthesized in factories, and can't be exploited for profit
| at megascale.
|
| If word ever leaked out that, for example, selenium, valerian
| root or St. John's wort were equivalent/better than
| synthetic, patented medications, we'd all be in trouble.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| I can buy valerian root tea at multinational grocery store.
| The problem with supplements isn't that they're
| disenfranchised, and it's not even that they strictly don't
| work. It's that the huge businesses that make tons of money
| off of them have so aggressively resisted regulation based
| on effectiveness, or even contents, that you can't count on
| what you're buying not poisoning you, let alone helping.
|
| And I'd love to see a natural replacement for insulin that
| doesn't kill people, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
| So maybe pharmaceutical technology does a few things that
| natural remedies can't?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > TBF Napster and torrents are another and earlier angle.
|
| Napster didn't kill the music industry, torrents didn't kill
| the movie industry because people still want to see movies on a
| big screen experience. And so, actors, directors, VFX artists,
| cutters, riggers, lighting staff, costume/mask people, they all
| continue to have jobs.
|
| But now, with AI being already able to do very realistic
| photos, and in a few years likely to create short movie
| sequences all based upon a prompt, not only will all these
| people be replaced by one prompt artist feeding a massive AI
| engine... but the diversity the AI can generate will always be
| limited by the diversity of its training material. It is by
| definition incapable of trying something entirely new, and
| since there will be no economic incentive to try anything
| entirely new there will be no expansion. (Oh, and guess what,
| movie prices aren't going down but since the expenses for all
| the humans vanish the profit concentration will accelerate!)
|
| Widespread AI will freeze our culture in an era of about
| 2020-2030 forever simply because capitalism will not offer any
| incentive to feed the AI with new, creative things.
| Ukv wrote:
| > torrents didn't kill the movie industry because people
| still want to see movies on a big screen experience
|
| Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the movie
| industry is because people weren't satisfied with smaller
| screens: would you be satisfied with content that is stuck in
| "2020-2030 forever" and can never produce anything "entirely
| new"?
|
| Personally I think novelty in art thrives when the entry
| barrier is low and experimentation is possible without a huge
| budget - which AI can help achieve.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the
| movie industry is because people weren't satisfied with
| smaller screens: would you be satisfied with content that
| is stuck in "2020-2030 forever" and can never produce
| anything "entirely new"?
|
| I fear the enshittification of movies - similar to, say,
| the situation in video games or residential ISPs: when
| everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base
| bullshit, customers won't move (because why move from a
| pile of cow dung to a pile of dog dung? it's all dung in
| the end), and everyone can keep fleecing the customers.
|
| > Personally I think novelty in art thrives when the entry
| barrier is low and experimentation is possible without a
| huge budget - which AI can help achieve.
|
| Oh even now even utter novices and two-three person teams
| can produce hours of high quality content, youtube is
| enough proof of that. Experimentation is not the problem,
| the problem is all the marketing to get people to sit in
| the cinema. For a lot of modern movies, music and video
| games the cost of production is at least on the same order
| of magnitude as the cost of marketing - even a blockbuster
| movie like Avengers Endgame [1] reportedly had 356 M$ of
| production cost vs 200 M$ of marketing cost, and of the
| production cost at least 100 M$ were compensation for the
| star actors.
|
| [1] https://collider.com/avengers-endgame-box-office-
| budget/
| Ukv wrote:
| > or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed
| to a common level of base bullshit, customers won't move
| (because why move from a pile of cow dung to a pile of
| dog dung? it's all dung in the end)
|
| So, if I'm understanding, you believe you wouldn't be
| satisfied with the movies, but wouldn't have a choice
| because of a silent agreement (as with residential ISPs)
| leaving customers with no good options. Is lowering
| barriers to competition not one of the ways that such
| oligopolies are fought?
|
| To me this seems far more of a risk in our current
| environment where the vast majority of high-production-
| value movies come from a small handful of companies that
| have the budget to make them (and give us plenty of safe
| low-risk sequels).
|
| > Oh even now even utter novices and two-three person
| teams can produce hours of high quality content, youtube
| is enough proof of that
|
| There are reasons why working-class people are vastly
| under-represented in arts - the time and resources
| required to create "hours of high quality video content"
| is a hefty investment even for Youtube videos, not to
| mention a feature film that people will want to watch.
| suoduandao3 wrote:
| >capitalism will not offer any incentive to feed the AI with
| new, creative things.
|
| Disney is already following that thesis without AI, yet it's
| never looked so vulnerable to the whims of the free market.
| hadlock wrote:
| > and in a few years likely to create short movie sequences
| all based upon a prompt
|
| It depends on the director and style of the era, but average
| "shot length" runs between 5 and 14 seconds. Six months ago
| companies were already demonstrating AI generated, 20 second
| shots (albeit with low motion, like slow pans) with the
| background staying mostly the same. I would probably upgrade
| this statement from "likely to create" to "almost near
| certainty".
| visarga wrote:
| > It is by definition incapable of trying something entirely
| new
|
| Only if the AI doesn't see any usage. But when you start
| using it, you get AI+human generating things that can be
| outside its training scope. Humans can input novel ideas into
| the prompt or include new information. Then AI gets to
| retrain on the data generated with human in the loop and
| improve. There is a chance for humans and AI to explore new
| directions.
|
| If you got a simple way to test, like the DeepMind geometry
| problem solving model, then AI models can improve on their
| own by doing massive search and validation. Kind of similar
| to the scientific method - formulate hypothesis, validate,
| observe outcomes, and repeat. Works for code too, or any AI
| output that can be "executed" and generate a validation
| signal.
| gaganyaan wrote:
| Completely unfounded fear, fortunately. AI will enable more
| people to be creative than ever before. People won't stop
| telling stories because of capitalism, they'll just continue
| the tradition of storytelling that predates capitalism by
| many millenia.
| dandellion wrote:
| There was no other outcome possible from the moment we invented
| a technology that allowed everybody to create infinite copies
| of digital content at almost zero cost.
|
| If tomorrow we discovered a source of infinite free energy, oil
| and energy companies could try anything they wanted, their
| current business model would end up obsolete sooner or later.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Can't say I disagree it was inevitable but could have been
| legislated for, which seems to be years behind the times as
| always. My main concern is just unique content that is
| adequately rewarded that isn't siphoned off by large
| platforms that can viralise said content, or along those
| lines.
|
| Maybe even if the big tech could pass on some (most) of the
| proceeds because of the (content share), it'd be far less a
| thing. Otherwise, 90% of people being made aware of an idea
| see it somewhere beyond the original source and those
| secondary sources capitalise because... simply because it's
| the norm.
| neonsunset wrote:
| Just look at what happened to nuclear energy :)
| k__ wrote:
| So, nuclear proponents are now going so far to call the
| catastrophes of the past a big oil psyops?
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Nuclear power plants have a dramatically higher upfront
| cost than personal computers. You can't really ignore the
| capital cost and call the energy free.
|
| A better example is solar power, which is slowly but surely
| whittling away at fossil fuels.
| peab wrote:
| That's not true at all - content ID on Youtube works quite
| well, and the Music Industry has strong ties to Youtube
| adventured wrote:
| It inherently has to damage our present conception of IP, unless
| we plan to cripple the AI revolution in the crib.
|
| If you have smart robots in the home, much less AGI, what's the
| plan on restricting them? Sorry robot, you may only learn this
| limited set of skills, you're not allowed to create, because
| you've seen too much and might be too good at learning and
| producing.
|
| They'll be incredibly metered if they're not allowed to learn and
| produce at a high capability.
|
| And if we're talking about AGI, you can never realistically reach
| it if you put it in the straightjacket required to protect IP as
| things are today. Sorry all-knowing AGI god, you may not make
| images that look too much like XYZ. In fact, you're not allowed
| to even see any of it because of your capabilities. In fact,
| Disney has decided through the copyright act of 2042 that you're
| not even allowed access to the Internet (or magazines, or radio,
| or music, or TV).
|
| It can't be AGI if it can't create. Forget about trained on
| ('just do not train it on material with copyright'), it'll self-
| train, and then what? Well then you can't even let it self-train,
| ie no AGI is possible.
|
| It's going to be either or. Either the IP laws get changed, or
| you get no AGI. The only thing possible would be extremely boxed
| off, narrow, high capability AI.
| jprete wrote:
| Why do you think AGI is desirable?
| foobiekr wrote:
| Humans are too stupid to collectively govern themselves. Just
| look at the US election cycle that is starting. There is a
| genuine messianistic cult at work.
| tatrajim wrote:
| All hail the wisdom of the cold circuits. We hear and obey.
| noitpmeder wrote:
| I, for one, do not want to live in your new world.
|
| Further, I doubt that preventing AIs from literally stealing
| protected information will halt the rise of smarter AI. There
| is plenty of free use information out there that is LEGAL TO
| USE. Just curate your dataset to prevent the ILLEGAL use of
| other material.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Depending on the outcome of the NYT case, I.P. may in fact be the
| death of (profitable) AI.
|
| One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is no
| mechanism for attribution. So it is impossible for rights holders
| to understand whether their works are being monetised (unlike,
| say, Spotify).
|
| Should NYT win, then either AI services will have to pay into a
| (very large) common pot for rights holders, which likely will
| make AI uneconomic (even if it does turn out to have some
| business benefit), or (paid) AI services will simply be banned.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is
| no mechanism for attribution.
|
| Sorry if this is a silly question, but is that really the case?
| Can we not train an LLM on successively larger training sets,
| each will uniquely ID's model and associated better
| performance?
| djohnston wrote:
| There's no way AI services are going anywhere. If the US
| kneecaps itself for parasitic rent seekers then China will win
| and benefit from the productivity these tools produce.
| gumballindie wrote:
| So the proposal of sociopathic thieves is that we turn into
| china and steal people's property? What an odd take.
| djohnston wrote:
| It's a hard world and we need to play to win.
| wredue wrote:
| It's not impossible. AI developers can 100% trace node that
| contribute to a result during the processing of a prompt,
| therefore they can be attributed.
|
| They'll never do this, of course, cause they're riding high on
| wins of stupid people pushing "you can't work backward from a
| result to find the nodes" (which is probably somewhat grounded
| in reality).
|
| Attribution is absolutely not impossible, they just want to
| think it's not possible, because enabling such a thing would
| show just how egregious the copying actually is.
| Ukv wrote:
| > they just want to think it's not possible
|
| As far as I'm aware, what you propose really isn't a solved
| issue. Most naive approaches you'd think might work are
| either infeasible or give chaotic nonsense results.
|
| Partial matching between the output text and the training
| data is possible as a step after generation (though doesn't
| determine whether it's coincidence).
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I'm not sure I like the direction AI is going anyway.
|
| Right now we're on a path towards just a handful of megacorps
| with AI agents that will make large numbers of white collar
| workers redundant. Imagine something like closed-source
| software only much worse.
| hadlock wrote:
| In the last six months model size has come way down and
| quality has gone way up through different training
| styles/methods. There is an incentive to release separate
| models capable of running on 8/16/32gb ram. On my laptop I
| have something like six free/open source models installed.
| LLMs are getting so easy to make that people are doing this
| in their spare time as a hobby. This is starting to feel like
| a small stepping stone towards AGI but only time will tell.
| gumballindie wrote:
| So essentially ai is profitable only if it resells stolen
| property. Almost as if it's not intelligent and it only
| procedurally generates output. The more the better.
| suoduandao3 wrote:
| How is it 'stolen' if it was part of a public dataset? Is the
| argument that OpenAI was scraping data that should have been
| behind a paywall?
| noitpmeder wrote:
| Just because it's publicly viewable does not mean it's free
| for reuse. Imagine an author who uploads chapters of their
| book to their own website. You cant take that and claim
| it's yours.
|
| Similarly with all the publically viewable source codes on
| GitHub/Lab. Just because you can view the code doesn't mean
| there aren't licenses in play for how you are able to use
| it.
|
| Further, what happens if stolen information is posted
| publicly? (E.g. wholesale copies of full books on html
| pages?
|
| Just because it's public doesn't mean the viewer has
| freedom to use it as they see fit.
| yokem55 wrote:
| That 'usage' is taking statistical notes about the work
| (creating factual statements about the work) and imputing
| those notes into a database, averaged with a few billion
| other notes about other works. That is a usage that
| copyright under current law simply doesn't cover or
| protect for. It doesn't even need the analysis if 'fair
| use' because, there's no copying or public performance
| happing in the creation/training of the model.
|
| Where infringement arguably can happen is when that model
| is used in the generation of content - and if the user is
| prompting regenerate a protected work, then that is where
| the infringement happens. But not before. Maybe the
| various ai services can adequately guard against that
| illicit usage. Maybe not. And if not, its those live
| services that would need to be shut down.
|
| But the creation and training of a model, and even
| distributing that model for people to use with their own
| computers in private does not engage in copyright
| infringement.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| If I create a sculpture and put it on my front lawn, I
| think it's fair for me to complain if you scan it and start
| 3d printing and selling copies, even if I intended it to be
| in public view. Just because I want the public to be able
| to enjoy my version of something, doesn't mean I want
| people to feel free to ingest it and monetize it for
| personal profit.
| mindcandy wrote:
| > there is no mechanism for attribution.
|
| What if there was?
|
| What if I hand-painted an image (without AI) and God himself
| came down from heaven and explained to the world that my
| painting was derived 10% from my observations of the collected
| works of Lisa Frank, 3% from looking at Davinci paintings, and
| 87% a long tail of various sources. And then I sell my painting
| for $100.
|
| OK. Now what?
| teddyh wrote:
| > _OK. Now what? Do I owe Lisa Frank $10?_
|
| No, because copyright law says that if you hand-paint an
| image (without AI), then as long as the images isn't deemed
| (by a court, if necessary) to be a derivative work, then you,
| and nobody else, own the copyright. The word of God is not
| necessarily considered by the law. And even if the court
| takes the word of God as gospel, a 10% derivative work might
| not exceed the necessary threshold of infringement.
| mindcandy wrote:
| Very good!
|
| Alternatively, if I created a large body of works that were
| 90% Lisa Frank and brought it to a large market
| distribution, making significant revenue, then she could
| sue me for damaging her market and her brand. Which she has
| done to others in the past and rightly won. Go Lisa Frank!
|
| But, if I used an AI tool in the process of making an image
| that came out 10% Lisa Frank, she wouldn't have a strong
| case against me. Nor does she have a case against the
| million random teenagers hand-copying her style but not
| making significant revenue from their copies.
|
| Either way, AI doesn't really factor in here. The results
| are the results and the markets are the markets regardless
| of AI or paint brushes.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Do you think it's reasonable for artists to want a way to
| forbid major AI corporations from training on their work?
| Because some people will stop producing/stop making
| available their work if they don't get access to a
| different way of doing so.
|
| Much like how some artists are uncomfortable with making
| high-quality scans of their work available online,
| because it becomes prohibitively difficult to prevent
| people from selling prints. Forget the current legal
| framework, it seems fair to me to say "I don't want that
| happening to my art" when "that" is a corporation finding
| a way to monetize it. Even if the AI is using less than a
| pixel of your work, I think it's fair to ask that it not.
| mindcandy wrote:
| I get that the concept is upsetting. And, I'm not going
| to tell people to not be upset or not state their will.
| Ex: DeviantArt has instated an opt-in checkbox for "It's
| OK to train on my art" and I think that's great.
|
| But, everything I've heard and learned about how AI works
| leads me to the conclusion that such a move is almost
| entirely symbolic. Counter to what our egos would like to
| believe, the vast majority of the training images and the
| vast majority of the learning value for AI comes from
| random, crappy photographs of various things. Without a
| million photos of dogs and trees, the AI can't make a
| stylized dog distinguishable from a stylized tree. And,
| it's turning out that, from that base of crappy
| photographs, it doesn't take many high-aesthetic images
| to make a high-aesthetic AI.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Are there other examples where the law crushed fundamental
| technological shifts?
|
| (Not just delayed briefly by starving investment or something.)
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| That assumes that the current crop of LLMs _are_ a
| fundamental technological shift.
|
| Furthermore, rights holders did it for file sharing, why not
| AI too?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Stem cells
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| I can only hope.
|
| In the mean time, we have and even worse situation: "AI" models
| like LLMs are effectively allowed to _launder_ IP. As long as
| companies like OpenAI are allowed to be ignorant of copyright,
| they get to _monopolize_ that ignorance.
|
| The result is that the rest of us are in an even worse position,
| because _we_ have to respect DMCA, but can 't benefit from it by
| monopolizing our own IP.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| 100%, sleight of hand plea of ignorance.
|
| Take xx billion pages of unique human content, do something,
| pretend that there's no monetary value to that content and
| monetise it. Farcical.
| mlsu wrote:
| Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting
| copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What
| happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in
| either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your
| imaginary resource (copyright) for the real resource (money),
| through licensing or fines.
|
| Debate about what AI means for copyright is really a debate about
| what we choose to do, what we choose to allow. It's a debate
| about whether the guys with guns will stop the development of AI,
| or how much.
|
| It's a bit of clever misdirection to declare the output of AI's
| "copyrightable" or "not copyrightable." Copyrightable is made up!
| It's fiction! It is whatever we want it to be!
| tilwidnk wrote:
| > Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction.
|
| Now, I don't have a college degree, but with my 60+ years life
| experience I can say, yes, copyright is a real thing, it
| protects people who create, from assholes and AI.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| It doesn't though
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| It's not real beyond what the parent post described, which is
| an expectation that the state will use guns and cages in
| reaction to certain behaviors
| gumballindie wrote:
| Am I the only one that loves a blunt and honest comment?
|
| Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue
| with corporations protecting their own. That's fine. What
| they want is to legally steal from the average joe.
| echelon wrote:
| Are you stealing from your lord, serf? Perhaps you should
| be churning the butter, not thinking for yourself. (I kid,
| I kid!)
|
| It's going to be just as easy to make a movie or a song as
| it was to write this comment. I'm working and researching
| at the edge, and I promise you that the entire world will
| be in awe of these next 12 months. Go play with Suno for a
| taste.
|
| I'm a senior engineer, and now I'm tab completing Rust code
| 70% of the time. It's hard to believe we've come this far,
| and it's only going to keep climbing in capability.
|
| You're watching breakneck progress, and the genie isn't
| going back.
|
| More art will be created per month than the entire human
| history to this point. Gen alpha is growing up on this
| stuff and using it to great effect to communicate amongst
| their peers. The things they build will be incredible.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > It's hard to believe we've come this far, and it's only
| going to keep climbing in capability.
|
| Or we hit the top of the sigmoid curve and just have
| fancy autocomplete.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I don't understand why the autocomplete meme is so
| compelling to people. How is drawing a picture, which
| modern AI systems are already capable of, "autocomplete"?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| (1) I was responding to the actual thing OP said (70%
| code completion in Rust).
|
| (2) It literally is autocompleting - it draws each pixel
| because it statistically determines that <some color
| value> is the best fit given the prompt and the prior
| pixels it drew. It's a more advanced robot, but it's
| still a robot.
| gumballindie wrote:
| AI systems are not "drawing a picture". They procedurally
| generate output given vast amounts of input, much of
| which has been stolen. Without it there would be no
| credible output. I dont understand why are ai cultists
| hell bent on theft.
|
| Llama, ollama, etc are not the issue here. Nor is ai. The
| issue is theft for training.
| emporas wrote:
| The parent makes the mistake, to assume an adversarial
| relationship between an mp3 download from a torrent and
| the musician. Or an adversarial relationship between
| training an A.I. statistical engine to a painter and
| reproducing the style.
|
| That's not correct. We are now increasing the
| capabilities of everyone creative, to achieve much more,
| almost free and instantly. The painter now, will have a
| 100 million film studio on his fingertips to create
| movies. The musician will be able make a high quality
| album, just from his snoring.
|
| One usual misconception is that talent is not important
| anymore. That's certainly not true. Talent is not going
| anywhere. People not so talented can get some results
| which are ok or good enough, but talented people can
| create magnificent art, without even trying.
|
| Also "tab completing Rust code 70% of the time" is
| breadcrumbs. I am working in making, Rust specifically,
| 100% code generated.
| kiba wrote:
| It is well understood that laws are man made construct
| enforced at the point of violence?
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| > Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue
| with corporations protecting their own
|
| Are you just not aware that the most outspoken advocates
| against private property (and rights to it, including
| IP/copyright), also strongly oppose capitalism and the idea
| of corporations?
| echelon wrote:
| Serfdom used to be a real thing.
|
| Dowry payments used to be a real thing.
|
| Butter churning used to be a real thing.
|
| Copyright law is, and will be, mutable.
|
| In just about a year, kids will be making entire Pixar movies
| from home. (The content will probably be Skibidi toilet
| related, but of Pixar scale and scope.)
|
| How that reconciles with copyright, you've got me. It
| doesn't. It's a domain mismatch. It's completely outmoded by
| what's coming.
|
| And the music industry is equally toast. I can already make
| an excellent banger song about superhero rodents in under 30
| seconds.
| mplewis wrote:
| None of what you described is quality content that anyone
| actually wants to watch.
| resolutebat wrote:
| The YouTube watch history of any 13-year-old provides a
| handy counterexample to your assertion.
|
| Slightly less flippantly, the days when the nation
| gathered around their TVs to all watch "Leave It To
| Beaver" at 8pm are long gone, the media landscape has
| been fragmenting for decades and this is just the next
| step. My kids don't watch TV shows, they follow
| YouTubers.
| distortedsignal wrote:
| Interestingly, that doesn't matter for copyright.
|
| A six-year-old filmmaker has as much claim to copyright
| protection as Spielberg and Tarantino. Just because one
| uploads to YouTube and one is paid millions of dollars by
| a major movie studio, it doesn't mean that they're
| different in the eyes of the law.
|
| From what I understand, once a work is created, copyright
| is assigned to that work's creator. That creator may then
| license that work however they want. Quality doesn't
| factor in.
| jtriangle wrote:
| Now, I don't have a college degree, but with my 60+ years
| life experience I can say, yes, copyright is a real thing, it
| protects people who create, from assholes and AI.
|
| There, I've stolen your post. Did copyright protect you? No,
| it did not. Copyright is an idea we came up with that sounded
| good at the time, and it's come to pass at this point that
| the original idea was deeply flawed in ways we could never
| have predicted, but now can see clearly in hindsight.
|
| The truth is, intellectual property should be protected by
| those creating it. Coke does a great job of this, as do many,
| many other companies. We call these "trade secrets", but
| ultimately the concept is the same. You're protecting the
| work you deem worth protecting.
|
| I don't buy the notion that copyright ever protected the
| creator. What it really protected was the interests of the
| entities who effectively enslave the creators via contract,
| and is not of any tangible benefit to the creators
| themselves. If one truly cares about the artisans among us,
| one cannot justify the existence of our ideas surrounding
| copyright.
|
| Yes, removing those laws from our doctrine would cause
| upheaval, as the market must then rebalance itself in the
| absence of the artificial pressure we've put on it, but in
| time all things find equilibrium again, and placing the value
| and responsibility back on the individual is, in my mind,
| simple human decency.
| adamsilkey wrote:
| > The truth is, intellectual property should be protected
| by those creating it.
|
| The whole point of government and laws and societal norms
| is that not everyone has to be deeply involved and
| specialized in protecting their rights. We default to
| people doing the right thing and seek out specialists (e.g.
| lawyers) when we're wronged.
| jtriangle wrote:
| Yeah, and it's a terrible system, because it effectively
| paywalls anything remotely resembling justice.
| throwboatyface wrote:
| Stop signs are made up too. See how far you get driving through
| all of them without stopping.
| k__ wrote:
| But they have a point.
|
| Copyright law is already different from country to country.
| throwboatyface wrote:
| Some countries have roundabouts. Some countries let you
| make a right turn on a red light. Traffic law isn't any
| more universal than copyright law. All law is made up but
| that doesn't make it less real.
| visarga wrote:
| But AI models are not limited to specific countries, they
| can be downloaded and run anywhere. Train in Japan
| (unrestrictive rules), then use in US.
| throwboatyface wrote:
| I can drive my car over the land border between two
| countries and have to switch sides of the road. Or the
| speed limit can go up/down. Or they can mandate different
| safety equipment.
| k__ wrote:
| I didn't mean to imply that they aren't real.
|
| I just wanted to say that laws are subject to change.
| michael_nielsen wrote:
| So are the rules of the road.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| U.S. copyright also has a constitutionally defined purpose:
|
| `[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress
| of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
| Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
| Writings and Discoveries.`
|
| Does the current scheme really promote the progress of science
| and useful arts? Is the current length of copyright really
| "limited Times"?
| ronsor wrote:
| > Is the current length of copyright really "limited Times"?
|
| This was argued before, and the Supreme Court decided "Yes,
| it is, somehow."
| visarga wrote:
| Choose any number of years < infinite. It's limited time.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| >What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with
| guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one
|
| That just seems like a sociopathic argument to circumvent
| perfectly clear laws intended to protect people who expend
| energy into offering new ideas and also trying to diminish what
| is already delineated as right and wrong. In the blatant sense.
|
| I'm not sure how your gun analogy funnels along to fair use.
|
| As with anyone who doesn't seem to respect copyright laws, I'd
| say to them, give me a copy of everything useful you've ever
| done in your life. Going by the same rule.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Most copyrights are not held by the people who expended
| energy into the labor of producing new work, they're held by
| the employers of that labor. Most people have no practical
| choice in finding the means for their survival but through
| wage labor and selling the ownership of what they produce.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| And that's fine, because presumably it's by consent.
| distortedsignal wrote:
| The "gun analogy" is the parent saying the the government
| (who is supposed to be the only entity able to use force) is
| supposed to protect IP. You're saying the same thing.
|
| You shouldn't say anything to anyone who doesn't respect
| copyright laws - or, rather, you shouldn't have to. Your tax
| dollars, and the entity that you authorize to be the one to
| use force where you live, should be able to say whatever you,
| as the governed citizen, want to say to the person who
| doesn't respect copyright.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| What parent? The comment I'm replying to has no parent and
| the article has no mention of a gun
| distortedsignal wrote:
| Sorry, I meant the comment you replied to.
| visarga wrote:
| And if you look at open source it does exactly that. Most AI
| models are open source/weights. People are giving away some
| of their best work because they want to cooperate with others
| to build things.
|
| Scientific publications also share knowledge openly. Only
| private journals are locking up papers, but they are losing
| ground. At least AI papers are free to read and implement.
| They share even code, datasets and trained models.
|
| I think the ethos of progress is with open culture not closed
| copyrights.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| It may be a good ethos but you can't simply undermine
| people's life work for your ethos especially when there's
| laws protecting their life work.
|
| Put yourself in their shoes. Maybe you use some AI
| derivative work for your own life's work and then when
| you've finally accomplished what you want to do, someone
| else duplicates it, or uses the majority of your work?
|
| What do you expect out of it. If you don't expect to be
| paid, great - I guess you'll be spending X other hours
| supporting yourself and possible family.
|
| And if you do, you don't expect the hard work of others to
| be compensated? Rhetorical question.
| visarga wrote:
| Use AI to build things for yourself. You get the benefit
| in those things, it doesn't matter if anyone else copies,
| as long as you're not selling content.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Sounds fine to me, just if the AI abides.
| IcyWindows wrote:
| Technology had made people's jobs obsolete for ages.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| But there is differences between technological evolution
| and wholesale taking of other people's intellectual
| property.
|
| You can go to Watt's steam engine or some such. I doubt
| he'd argue that his engine had intellectual property on
| the manual labour people did since time immemorial. But
| yet it did make their jobs obsolete.
|
| Maybe some of them died while his patents were still in
| play. All the same, his invention, his idea, plays by the
| rules.
| kopecs wrote:
| Do you not believe that societal constructs are real? What
| makes (fiat) money a real resource and copyright an imaginary
| one? What about this logic:
|
| Debt is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting contract
| law is not like subverting the laws of physics. Simply don't
| pay your bills! What happens when you subvert contract law is
| some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one,
| force a trade of your imaginary resource (money) for the real
| resource (labor), through a contract.
|
| It's a bit of clever misdirection to declare yourself "in debt"
| or "debt free." Money is made up! It's fiction! It is whatever
| we want it to be!
| rngname22 wrote:
| Really confused to see your comment flagged.
|
| The parent comment basically says "copyright is not a
| physical good or law, therefore we may disregard it".
|
| As if the same couldn't be said for any verbal agreement,
| sexual consent, property rights, whatever.
|
| They ought to be arguing why this _particular_ verbal
| agreement/social contract is not worth enforcing or
| practicing, rather than dismissing the entire category.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| It can and should be said about every fiction, as a healthy
| reminder to yourself. Fiat money, government and property
| rights are complete abstractions, completely abused and
| tarnished beyond all limits. A verbal agreement is on a
| much closer level to reality. Even people who have never
| heard of money or owned property will take a man up on his
| word. As for sexual consent it is not something abstract at
| all. It's not words. It is the will of a person and
| something that can never be misunderstood.
| stefan_ wrote:
| This is funny, the moment _the absence of IP_ can benefit large
| companies it 's just a fiction, a made up concept, not too
| serious at all.
|
| Of course you go onto the OpenAI corporate pitch page and it
| will proudly say "respects your IP by not training from it!",
| that's not the part we are looking to get rid of apparently?
| That's very real?
| visarga wrote:
| This is a clever trick, making out corporations to be the
| beneficiary - who is the real beneficiary? The one who
| prompts, because they can use the output of the model to
| solve their problems. In the meantime AI developers make
| cents on 100K tokens and are mostly in the red.
|
| Why not put the issue where it is - it's a debate about
| public empowerment with AI vs incumbents protecting their
| copyrights. Especially for open source models - this
| situation is not about corporations. Yes, corporations are
| the ones with deep pockets and easier to sue, but that's just
| how lawsuits go, you don't waste money suing someone who
| can't pay up.
|
| What is more important in the next decades - public
| empowerment or extending copyright to block training AI
| models? Can we agree to limit copyright to exact
| reproductions or should it cover all content generated from a
| model, even if when it looks different from all training
| examples?
|
| I think going the copyright maximalist way will indirectly
| hurt creatives because all their works will be checked with
| the same tools we use to check AI. Anyone could be secretly
| using generative models. The AI attribution methods will
| reveal all sorts of things we don't like to see.
| axus wrote:
| The outrage as packaged by the media really does mirror the
| anger against Napster from 25 years ago. I seem to recall
| the small-time musicians were more excited about Napster,
| though.
| visarga wrote:
| I remember when BitTorrent users were getting sued left
| and right, I was thinking about how can a P2P network
| allow downloading without revealing what was downloaded.
| Now we got the answer - the LLM - you can download the
| same LLM like anyone else and nobody knows what you're
| getting from it.
| jprete wrote:
| Wait, what? Money is real? I thought it was just a
| collectively-imagined pile of IOUs to keep track of how many
| favors someone is owed.
| efsavage wrote:
| In the sense of Sapiens+, yes, copyright is a fiction, but so
| is money, or any law or contract or agreement. In as much as it
| affects people's lives and societies and economies it is
| "real". The question of the article isn't about realness, it's
| whether it can evolve or survive this latest shift.
|
| +
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Hu...
| eimrine wrote:
| The obelisk symbol after Sapiens word put in the manner it is
| being put after the names of dead people emparrassed me a
| little.
| galdosdi wrote:
| Can you please clarify this cryptic comment? The OP just
| used a common variation of asterisk, and I am really
| confused what your beef with it is.
|
| "in the manner it is being put after the names of dead
| people " is a total non sequitur in this context, how is
| that in any way related to the discussion or anything the
| OP said?
| andrewmutz wrote:
| I agree but I would word it a bit differently: Copyright isn't
| some fixed, timeless thing. It has been continuously modified
| to suit the times and to adapt to technological change.
|
| Rather than try to reason about how existing copyright law
| applies to AI models, we should be focused on changing
| copyright law to work well in a world with AI.
|
| We can balance the incentives of content creators with the
| incentives of the users and creators of AI models. I'm
| confident we can do it because we've done it every time in the
| past when technology has changed, and AI models will be no
| different.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > It has been continuously modified to suit the times and to
| adapt to technological change.
|
| And to suit the whims of sufficiently large and influential
| media conglomerates.
|
| Yes, you, as an indie creator, have the exact same
| intellectual property rights as Disney. But if Disney steals
| something you made, who's going to win that fight?
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| This is not a solid argument because it suggests every single
| social contract involved in human society is not worthwhile,
| important, or "real".
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| Leaving aside the semantics of what is "real" - yes, that is
| the point, that is why the article exists. "Is A.I. The Death
| of Gravity" is a nonsense question, "Is A.I. the Death of I.P."
| is not, precisely because humans get to decide the answer. We
| have developed certain norms and institutions over hundreds of
| years and now we must decide whether to scrap them in the name
| of technological progress. How we decide the question will have
| huge implications for how wealth and power are distributed in
| our society.
| fulladder wrote:
| Contracts are not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting
| contract law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What
| happens when you subvert contract law is some guys with guns,
| in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your
| imaginary resource (a contract) for the real resource (money),
| through licensing or fines.
| huytersd wrote:
| Well that's a stupid argument. A good argument is that AI is in
| accordance with copyright law already since there are no
| reproductions. In the rare cases where there are reproductions,
| they can be DMCA taken down like we already do with post LLM
| output filters.
| rangerelf wrote:
| I think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own
| arguments, because, literally, everything of social utility is
| a fiction: money, law, "private property", contracts, and so
| forth.
|
| All of them are needed for society to function, but at the same
| time all of them are convenient fictions for us to build upon.
| mlsu wrote:
| My point is that in these discussions, don't make the mistake
| of considering the artificial thing ("it's copyrightable/it's
| not copyrightable"). Rather, consider the real thing ("You
| will pay a licensing fee to use your GPU").
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I'm still confused. Sure, a GPU is a real, physical thing.
| But licenses and fees are no more or less fiction than
| copyright. A license says "I have permission from the
| company makers to use this product", similar to how
| copyright is "you must get permission from me to use my
| product".
|
| But for the sake of this discussion: I don't think anyone
| can assume those permissions when using a tool to generate
| the base image. Ironically enough, it may make more sense
| to have artists for concepting, copyrighting the character
| or world so you obtain those permissions, and then using AI
| to ramp up production. That's an inversion of what's
| happening for early AI usage.
|
| The main question is how much concepting is needed to
| copyright a character? Making a few sketches in private?
| Releasing a full work first with no AI on what you want to
| copyright?
| cush wrote:
| > Copyright is not a real thing.
|
| > - I think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own
| arguments
|
| > licensing fee...
|
| It took them exactly one reply. New record
| karmakaze wrote:
| It's only real if you believe it has value. If you choose
| to say copyright is made up and doesn't have real value
| then it isn't real to you, but recognize that it's
| arbitrary as others will believe in the value of copyright
| so still has value in their eyes. e.g. Taking a copyright
| from someone (if that were possible) would cost them like
| taking a fee costs them--losing something they value.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| Sure, you can make a slippery slope argument, but there is
| something substantially more "fictional" / artificial /
| unnatural about copyright/IP than currencies and other social
| constructs you are equivocating with.
|
| Storytelling is as old as language itself and might even be
| older than our particular species, and is basically copyright
| infringement. The same goes for tool-making, which is thought
| to be one of the sparks that gave rise to our species' vast
| intelligence. That's how imaginary copyright and IP in
| general is, let's take the thing we've been doing since
| literally the dawn of time, copying and sharing information
| for free and building upon and improving it, and portray this
| practice as "unnatural" and "unlicensed" and in fact let's
| set up a restrictive framework under which most of the
| technological and cultural achievements in human history and
| before would have been impossible or severely hampered. It
| reeks of artificiality, way more than money and other things
| do.
|
| It was created by corporations to make it easier for them to
| form monopolies around unchallenged control over a particular
| intellectual property or idea, and now that it is becoming
| inconvenient for them with the advent of AI, they will
| probably get rid of it or re-invent it in some way that even
| further benefits them.
|
| It also matters very little what we do because in the end we
| will be out-competed by other countries like China that don't
| draw these artificial intellectual lines that hamper
| progress.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| "Society" is the most abstract illusion of them all. It
| doesn't exist and has never existed anywhere, it has always
| been a complete fiction and pretend. So, maintaining a bunch
| of fictions in order to maintain another fiction becomes
| circular reasoning.
| belter wrote:
| This post does not exist...
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| Money is no more real than copyright.
| kajecounterhack wrote:
| As many other comments mention, copyright is as real as
| contract law or money.
|
| A more correct statement with the same thrust would be
| "copyright is not _natural_ -- it's an artificial, bolt-on
| construct."
|
| And yet lots of artificial constructs are useful for
| incentivizing / de-incentivizing massed behavior in a way that
| is maximally beneficial to all. For sure, getting it right is
| difficult but let's not write off all artificial constructs as
| worthless or impossible to get right (especially when you just
| have to get it right _enough_).
| z7 wrote:
| >Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction.
|
| Maybe, but you can also say that about money or about being
| married. Social fictions work as collective agreements on what
| is seen as useful for society. One can obviously critique their
| utility, but pointing out the ficitonal component isn't in
| itself a criticism.
| lordnacho wrote:
| The thing that separates copyright from the other fictions
| mentioned is that there are pretty good reasons to think this
| particular fiction is not useful.
|
| Property and debt have much longer histories and seem more
| clearly defensible.
|
| Of course there is one really big fiction out there that a lot
| of people no longer really believe, but that doesn't mean
| longevity isn't a thing to consider.
| tivert wrote:
| > Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting
| copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What
| happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with
| guns...
|
| That reasoning applies to murder, too. After all, a bullet
| through your mom's brain is just a physically allowable
| reconfiguration of the position of some atoms.
|
| So you're making a true point, but a useless one, since you're
| operating on the wrong level of abstraction.
| cratermoon wrote:
| No, but media companies like Disney, Warner Bros, and Paramount
| might find it a useful lever to squeeze independent creators even
| further than they already are.
| Jun8 wrote:
| Here's a story from my days at Motorola Labs around 2009 that you
| might find relevant: we were looking at ways for streaming
| content to homes (Moto owned a set-top box business at that time)
| and there were big debates about the future of streaming. The
| position that prevailed was that consumers would not be able to
| stream content to their heart's content en masse because content
| providers would never let it. I distinctly remember a
| presentation poster that said you couldn't stream because it's
| against the law, hence use our solution, etc.
|
| Moral of the story for me is that if there's adequate money to be
| made laws, protocols, etc. can _totally_ be changed.
| artninja1988 wrote:
| > Bellos, a comparative-literature professor at Princeton, and
| Montagu, an intellectual-property lawyer, find this kind of rent-
| seeking objectionable. They complain that corporate copyright
| owners "strut the world stage as the new barons of the twenty-
| first century," and they call copyright "the biggest money
| machine the world has seen." They point out that, at a time when
| corporate ownership of copyrights has boomed, the income of
| authors, apart from a few superstars, has been falling. They
| think that I.P. law is not a set of rules protecting individual
| rights so much as a regulatory instrument for business.
|
| Couldn't agree more
| noitpmeder wrote:
| Remove copywriter protections and small time authors have the
| potential to earn EVEN LESS.
|
| Why write books or any creative text based content when the
| second it's available it will be hoovered into the next AI
| training cycle and can be reproduced in part or in whole by
| users who almost definitely do not know who you are in the
| first place.
| artninja1988 wrote:
| Is that even the case? Who would read a small time writers
| fiction book through chatgpt? Most of the use cases I've seen
| for chatgpt, e.g. Translation, conversation, brainstorming,
| reformulation, summarization are wholly different from the
| dataset of books. I would say that the art generators have a
| stronger claim of competing with their work than llms
| noitpmeder wrote:
| OpenAI/other is earning money (by selling subscriptions,
| ...) with a product that has been trained on and utilizes
| the protected work to produce their results.
|
| Personally I think the only way forward is for these AI
| companies to curate their dataset to only material that is
| legal for use. E.g. only GitHub repos with licenses stating
| such. Just because there is not a license doesn't mean it's
| free to hoover.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Or there could be a very cheap license for AI training
| that doesn't allow other uses, much like radio licenses
| for music.
|
| They could buy a bunch of content created (or
| specifically licensed) for purpose, the artists get paid,
| and the artists that don't want their work to go into the
| pipeline get what they want too.
|
| But too many people consider the development of AI to be
| such a moral imperative that no objections can possibly
| be relevant.
| mcguire wrote:
| It's amazing how fast the "I want to get paid for my work"
| attitude disappears when discussing _someone else_ getting paid
| for their work.
| huytersd wrote:
| Well it's kind of silly to say an AI is replicating my style
| when your style is "I only use purple and yellow and thick
| black outlines in my work".
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I used the new Instagram "AI" yesterday to "Add a famous duck and
| his famous mouse friend" to my image which gave me a perfect
| Donald Duck in the background (I guess it forgot the famous
| mouse). Surely lawyers just need to work on the replication
| prompts to demonstrate the model was trained from a copyrighted
| image and replicates it so accurately to make their case?
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?
|
| One can only hope.
| silveira wrote:
| I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were
| copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was
| piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When
| corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are
| talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to
| accommodate them.
| shredprez wrote:
| This is the right take -- whatever your position on the future
| of this technology or its costs and benefits for humanity, the
| hypocrisy mentioned here shouldn't go unacknowledged.
| mwhitfield wrote:
| It's only "hypocrisy" if it's the same people saying it. The
| media zeitgeist is not a person.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their
| own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police,
| prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright
| infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the
| copyright laws to accommodate them_
|
| It's been over a decade since an individual was prosecuted for
| digital piracy [1]. Longer since anyone was threatened with
| jail time.
|
| When it was new, both individuals and companies were
| prosecuted. The tides shifted and law enforcement responded.
| This isn't a story of different standards, but one of evolving
| ones.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum
| ricardo81 wrote:
| I think the GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs
| individuals breaching the same idea.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _GP 's point was it's different rules for big co vs
| individuals breaching the same idea_
|
| My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is
| virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the
| last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is
| being sued by the _New York Times_ [1] and various writers
| [2].
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-
| york-t...
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/technology/more-writers-sue-
| openai-c...
| ricardo81 wrote:
| I don't think you have a point, the original poster was
| talking about individual indiscretions (20 years ago
| also) vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's
| copyrighted work for corporate gain, today.
|
| Some lawsuits don't change that fact.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _individual indiscretions vs wholesale scraping of
| billions of people 's copyrighted work...some lawsuits
| don't change that fact_
|
| Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have _not_
| been punished. Wholesale scraping _is_ being punished.
| Some lawsuits _do_ challenge the hypothesis that
| corporates ' copyright violations are being treated more
| leniently than individuals'.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the
| decade before not relevant? The original point was not
| about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're
| talking about?
|
| You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems
| like misdirection.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was
| the decade before not relevant?_
|
| I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright
| infringement have changed _in general_. In general, in
| 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime,
| reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for _both_
| individuals and coporations. In general, in the past
| decade, it 's meant none of those things for _either_
| individuals or corporations. Yet it 's meant fines and
| lawsuits for corporations with virtually none I can find,
| in America, aimed at individuals.
|
| Also, LLMs were basically invented less than a decade ago
| [1].
|
| > _seems like misdirection_
|
| "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing,
| shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like" [2].
|
| [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Your link to the guidelines doesn't prevent me from
| implying you're directing away from the point, and nor
| should it.
|
| >I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright
| infringement have changed in general.
|
| Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In
| the end you were replying to me and the original poster
| so respect the spirit of those posts.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| I agree -- it does seem like intentional misdirection.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| And plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for
| seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets
| like Germany where an entire industry stalks public
| torrents looking for German IPs.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for
| seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets
| like Germany_
|
| Fair enough, I'm talking about America. To my knowledge,
| individuals downloading pirated content have not been
| threatened with lawsuits. And to the degree seeders have
| been threatened, it's only that--threats. When was the
| last distributor actually sued?
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Sure, they don't prosecute, they just threaten you into a
| settlement. Is that any better?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they don 't prosecute, they just threaten you into a
| settlement. Is that any better?_
|
| Objectively, yes. Paying a settlement in private is better
| than being publicly prosecuted and then put in jail.
|
| That said, it's still no cakewalk. Do you have a source for
| individuals settling copyright claims? I'm not finding any
| recent stories nor surveys.
| reedciccio wrote:
| Try downloading pirated movies and see how long it takes
| for you to receive a letter from your ISP telling you to
| stop or else... It's automatic, that's why you don't hear
| about lawsuits anymore: not necessary, the law
| enforcement is semi automatic now.
| dageshi wrote:
| We're not exactly tearing everything apart to combat piracy
| nowadays even though piracy still exists, so I'm not sure
| exactly what it reveals other than attitudes change?
| pylua wrote:
| Are they training it on music from top artists or their lyrics?
| Maybe they haven't poked the wrong bear yet.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Did some limited testing(chatgpt 3.5).
|
| If you ask it to complete text and give it the first line, it
| will sometimes continue the lyrics. Seems to work best for
| particularly famous stretches of lyrics, like Lose Yourself
| by Eminem, Bohemian Rhapsody or Hurt.
|
| When I told it to complete the text "Obie Trice, real name no
| gimmicks", it said I'm sorry I can't reproduce the lyrics to
| Without Me by Eminem. And offered to tell me more about Obie
| Trice.
|
| When I just asked it to reproduce the lyrics to Bohemian
| Rhapsody, it once again refused and offered to analyse the
| lyrics.
|
| Seems like there's clearly song lyrics in the training data,
| and that they've at least made attempts to prevent it from
| regurgitating them.
| rhystmills wrote:
| There are plenty of articles from major news orgs about we
| shouldn't accept LLMs infringing copyright. The New York Times
| are suing OpenAI.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> There are plenty of articles from major news orgs
|
| Opinion articles.
| supertofu wrote:
| Remember those very dramatic warnings before movie trailers
| equating piracy to real-world theft (You wouldn't steal a car;
| you wouldn't rob a bank; piracy is a crime...)? Seems laughable
| now.
| happytiger wrote:
| Rules for thee and not for me? Perhaps V, perhaps.
|
| I want to gently reframe the debate, for while I agree with the
| hypocrisy it rather misses a very key point.
|
| Intellectual law, as bedrock principle, _explicitly doesn't
| recognize nonhuman creators._ So at the heart of the issue
| isn't changing copyright laws or the death of IP, but _what to
| do with non-human creativity?_ This is an interesting issue
| now, but most of the debates and options being debated thus far
| won't survive an AGI let alone a world full of advanced AGIs.
|
| But it's a critical distinction between "so now it doesn't
| matter when it was theft before," and "what do we do with non-
| human intelligence when our entire system of creativity
| protection is build around humans and non-humans now exist?"
|
| It's a paradigm shift that gets somewhat denied by the
| hypocrisy argument. Most people look at AI as "technology" we
| have developed, but if any science fiction writers are right
| it's actually a bona fide digital intelligence that's getting
| developed here -- essentially the possible digital twin of
| human intelligence -- and that's a whole different set of
| considerations.
| leotravis10 wrote:
| This is the absolute correct take, especially with the
| uncertainty and legal actions (copyright infringment lawsuits)
| against AI right now.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Perhaps another angle is that the incoming and young workforce
| find it extremely convenient to take everyone else's work and
| make it their own.
|
| It is nature after all, to spend the least amount of energy to
| attain a goal.
|
| It would be convenient to accept it as par for the course.
|
| The problem seems to be is that copyright laws are basically
| ignored nowadays.
| rikroots wrote:
| If anyone wants to train their AI thing on my poetic output ...
| they're more than welcome to![1] I've been working for decades to
| get people's eyeballs bleeding from reading (too much of) my
| poetry; the thought that someone would even want to train a
| machine to churn out eyeball-bleeding poetry influenced by my
| work - it makes me happy!
|
| [1] - https://rikverse2020.rikweb.org.uk/blog/copyrights
|
| (sarcasm only half-intended)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-17 23:01 UTC)