Comment on Former Meta exec says asking for artist permission will kill AI industry

CosmoNova@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  But the law is largely the reverse. It only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon.

  AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. Setting up barriers that only benefit the ultra-wealthy will only end with corporations gaining a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive and cumbersome for regular folks. What the people writing this article want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would jeopardize research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.

  I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.

  source

  • ICastFist@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.

    Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use

    Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free. “But they spent money and time and resources!” So did everyone who created the stuff they’re using for their training, so they can fuck off.

    The article by Tory also says these things:

    This facilitates the creation of art that simply would not have existed and allows people to express themselves in ways they couldn’t without AI. (…) Generative AI has the power to democratize speech and content creation, much like the internet has.

    I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.

    source

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use

      You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.

      Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free.

      I agree

      I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.

      But 99.9% of the internet is stuff that no one would miss. Things don’t have to have value to you to be worth having around. That trash could serve as inspiration for your 0.1% of people or garner feedback for people to improve.

      source

      • ICastFist@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The apparent main use for AI thus far is spam and scam, which is what I was thinking about when dismissing most content made with that. While the internet was already chock full of that before AI, its availability is increasing those problems tenfold

        Yes, people use it for other things, like “art”, but most people using it for “art” are trying to get a quick buck ASAP before customers get too smart to fall for it. Writers already had a hard time getting around, now they have to deal with a never ending deluge of AI books, plus the risk of a legally distinct enough copy of their work showing up the next day.

        Put it another way, the major use of AI thus far is “i want to make money without effort”

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I don’t really disagree with your other two points, but

        You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.

        They sure do, of which that is not one. That’s de facto copyright infringement or plagiarism. Especially if you then turn around and sell that product.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • deur@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Don’t bother reading this idiot’s stupid wall of text.

    source

    • despoticruin@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah, anyone who thinks stealing content explicitly for financial gain is fair use needs their head checked.

      source
    • tane6@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Insanely weak they deleted this

      source
  • tane6@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The fact that this is upvoted is so funny but unsurprising given the types who visit this site

    source
• umbrella@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • 6nk06@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You can’t have a better law. Copyright laws are one-sided towards $billion companies. They would never agree to give more power to small creators or (worse) open-source projects who rely on such laws without making money.

    source

    • endeavor@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes you can. Raise awareness, vote, contact representatives, organise and sign a large petition. This is eu only, if youre in us use 2nd amendment as intended in order to get your democracy back.

      source