>all AI companies would have to seek out ways to completely retrain their models to avoid copyright infringement, put in place cumbersome methods of restricting the generation of infringing material, or set out to retroactively license all the material they fed into their LLMs. A loss could completely alter the future path of AI (as well as how IP holders are and will be compensated for their work).
This is phrased like a negative but all parts of it sound like positive wins for society...
bradley13 · 9h ago
I do care: I want copyright gutted. It was meant as a short-term incentive, not a century-long monopoly.
Moreover, a lot of the copyright lawsuits are trying to restrict fair use - and that definitely includes AI "reading" a work or "looking" at a picture.
Arainach · 9h ago
>and that definitely includes AI "reading" a work or "looking" at a picture.
"Reading" or making a full copy? The examples over and over of these models generating full clones are rather damning.
alganet · 8h ago
I think you're wrong, and copyright law is the unexpected ally of the people in this matter.
Big studios already got their death sentence. Smaller independent productions, even individuals, will get the larger slice of the pie eventually. This shift is already happening.
Pretend you're a small producer working on something for years. A YouTube series or something. Then an AI company ingests your content and outpaces you, reproducing your style (either directly or "serving it as electricity" to others, while making money off of it). That is a nightmare scenario for culture. Training data hungry AI should not be able to eat whatever they want.
We need this precedent to be set, it will be important. And big studios are going to die anyway, AI or not, no reason to fear monopoly. Let's use their sacrifice to estabilish good laws for the small fish.
This is phrased like a negative but all parts of it sound like positive wins for society...
Moreover, a lot of the copyright lawsuits are trying to restrict fair use - and that definitely includes AI "reading" a work or "looking" at a picture.
"Reading" or making a full copy? The examples over and over of these models generating full clones are rather damning.
Big studios already got their death sentence. Smaller independent productions, even individuals, will get the larger slice of the pie eventually. This shift is already happening.
Pretend you're a small producer working on something for years. A YouTube series or something. Then an AI company ingests your content and outpaces you, reproducing your style (either directly or "serving it as electricity" to others, while making money off of it). That is a nightmare scenario for culture. Training data hungry AI should not be able to eat whatever they want.
We need this precedent to be set, it will be important. And big studios are going to die anyway, AI or not, no reason to fear monopoly. Let's use their sacrifice to estabilish good laws for the small fish.