Comment on This new data poisoning tool lets artists fight back against generative AI
vidarh@lemmy.stad.social 8 months agoSociety is built to distribute wealth, so that everyone can live a decent life.
As a goal, I admire it, but if you intend this as a description of how things are it’d be boundlessly naive.
Zeth0s@lemmy.world 8 months ago
That’s absolutely not how it is now, just the goal we should set for ourselves. A goal we should consider when regulating AI
vidarh@lemmy.stad.social 8 months ago
To me, that’s not an argument for regulating AI, though, because most regulation we can come up with will benefit those with deep enough pockets to buy themselves out of the problem, while solving nothing.
E.g. as I’ve pointed out in other debates like this, Getty Images has a market cap of <$2bn. OpenAI may have had a valuation in the $90bn range. Google, MS, Adobe all also have shares prices that would trivially allow them to purchase someone like Getty to get ownership of a large training set of photos. Adobe already has rights to a huge selection via their own stock service.
Bertelsmann owns Penguin Random-House and a range ofter publishing subsidiaries. It’s market cap is around 15 billion Euro. Also well within price for a large AI contender to buy to be able to insert clauses about AI rights.
That’s before considering simply hiring a bunch of writers and artists to produce data for hire.
So any regulation you put in place to limit the use of copyrighted works only creates a “tax” effectively.
E.g. OpenAI might not be able to copy artist X’s images, but they’ll be able to hire artist Y on the cheap to churn out art in artist X’s style for hire, and then train on that. They might not be able to use author Z’s work, but they can hire a bunch of hungry writers (published books sells ca 200 copies on average; the average full time author in the UK earns below minimum wage from their writing) as a content farm.
The net result for most creators will be the same.
Even wonder why Sam Altmann of OpenAI has been lobbying about the dangers of AI? This is why. And its just the start. As soon as these companies have enough capital to buy themselves access for data, regulations preventing training on copyrighted data will be them pulling up the drawbridge and making it cost-prohibitive for people to build open, publicly accessible models in ways that can be legally used.
And in doing so they’ll effectively get to charge an “AI tax” on everyone else.
If we’re going to protect artists, we’d be far better off finding other ways of compensating them for the effects, not least because it will actually provide them some protection.
Zeth0s@lemmy.world 8 months ago
UBI is the known solution to protect workers. Solution is there, people aren’t ready for it
vidarh@lemmy.stad.social 8 months ago
As long as people aren’t ready for it, then it doesn’t solve the immediate problem that needs to be solved today.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Lol.
How does UBI break trademark and copyright law (and therefore legal cases)?
Do you really think the current power brokers will suddenly sit in their hands and stop trying to (mostly successfully) control as much as they can?