Comment

Comment on The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates

That would be like you writing out the bee movie yourself after memorizing the whole movie and claiming it is your own idea or using it as proof that humans memorizing a movie is violating copyright. Just because an AI is violating copyright by outputting the whole bee movie, it doesn’t mean training the AI on copyright stuff is violating copyright.

Let’s just punish the AI companies for outputting copyright stuff instead of for training with them. Maybe that way they would actually go out of their way to make their LLM intelligent enough to not spit out copyrighted content.

Or, we can just make it so that any output made by an AI that is trained on copyrighted stuff cannot be copyrighted.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
There is actually already a website where people just recreated the bee movie by hand so idk it might actually work as a legal argument.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

source
calcopiritus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
If the solution is making the output non-copyrighted it fixes nothing. You can sell the pirating machine on a subscription. And it’s not like Netflix where the content ends when the subscription ends, you have already downloaded all the not-copyrighted content you wanted, and the internet would be full of non-copyrighted AI output.

Instead of selling the bee movie, you sell a bee movie maker, and a spiderman maker, and a titanic maker.

Sure, file a copyright infringement each time you manage to make an AI output copyrighted content. Just run it on a loop and it’s a money making machine. That’s fine by me.

source
- stephen01king@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Yeah, because running the AI also have some cost, so you are selling the subscription to run the AI on their server, not it’s output.
  
  I’m not sure what is the legality of selling a bee movie maker, so you’d have to research that one yourself.
  
  It’s not really a money making machine if you lose more money running the AI on your server farm, but whatever floats your boat. Also, there are already lawsuits based on outputs created from chatgpt, so it is exactly what is already happening.
  
  source
  - calcopiritus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Yeah, making sandwiches also costs money! I have to pay my sandwich making employees to keep the business profitable! How do they expect me to pay for the cheese?
    
    source
    stephen01king@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    They should pay for the cheese, I’m not arguing against that, but they should be paying it the same amount as a normal human would if they want access to that cheese. No extra fees for access to copyrighted material if you want to use it to train AI vs wanting to consume it yourself.
    
    And I didn’t miss your point. My point was that the reality is already occurring since people are already suing OpenAI for ChatGPT outputs that the people suing are generating themselves, so it’s no longer just a hypothetical. We’ll see if it is a money making machine for them or will they just waste their resources from doing that.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
I don’t think that’s a feasible dream in our current system. They’ll just lobby for it, some senators will say something akin to “art should have been always a hobby, not a profession”, then make adjustments for the current copyright laws so that they can be copyrighted.

source