Just because intellectual property laws currently can be exploited doesnt mean there is no place for it at all.
Comment on The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal
96VXb9ktTjFnRi@feddit.nl 2 months ago
I don’t like AI but I hate intellectual property. And the people that want to restrict AI don’t seem to understand the implications that has. I am ok with copying as a think copyright is a load of bullocks. But they aren’t even reproducing the content verbatim are they? They’re ‘taking inspiration’ if you will, transforming it into something completely different. Seems like fair use to me. It’s just that people hate AI, and hate the companies behind it, and don’t get me wrong, rightfully so, but that shouldn’t get us all to stop thinking critically about intellectual property laws.
rekorse@lemmy.world 2 months ago
96VXb9ktTjFnRi@feddit.nl 2 months ago
That’s an opinion you can have, but I can just as well hold mine, which is that restricting any form of copying is unnatural and harmful to society.
rekorse@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Do you believe noone should be able to charge money for their art?
96VXb9ktTjFnRi@feddit.nl 2 months ago
That’s right. They can put their art up for sale, but if someone wants to take a free copy nothing should be able to stop them.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 months ago
True but you people have had hundreds of years to fix the system and have not.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
They’re ‘taking inspiration’ if you will, transforming it into something completely different.
That is not at all what takes place with A.I.
An A.I. doesn’t “learn” like a human does. It aggregates multiple chunks from multiple sources. It’s just really really tiny chunks so it’s hard to tell sometimes.
That’s why you can ask two AI’s to write a story based on the same prompt and some of their lines will be exactly the same. Because it’s not taking inspiration from, it’s literally copying bits and pieces of other works and it happens that they both chose that particular bit.
If you do that when writing a paper in university it’s called plagerism.
Get the fuck out of here with your “A.I. takes inspiration…” it copies nothing more. It doesn’t add anything new to the sum total of the creative zeitgeist because it’s just remixes of things that already exist.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
it copies nothing more it’s just remixes of things that already exist.
So it does do more than copying? Because as you said - it remixes.
It sounds like the line you’re trying to draw is not only arbitrary, but you yourself can’t even stick with it for more than one sentence.
Everything new is some unique combination of things that already exist, the elements it draws from are called sources and influences, and rules according to which they’re remixed are called techniques.
Heck even re-arranging elements of just one thing is a unique and different thing, or is your favourite song and a remix of it literally the same? Or does the remix not have artistic value, even though someone out there probably likes the remix, but not the original?
I think your confusion stems from the fact you’re a top shelf, grade-A Moron.
You’re an organic, locally sourced and ethically produced idiot, and you need to learn how basic ML works, what “new” is, and glance at some basic epistemology and metaphysics before you lead us to ruin because you don’t even understand what “new” entails, before your reactionary rhetoric leads us all down straight to cyberpunk dystopias.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Damn, attack the argument, not the person, homie.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Yeah, sorry
ricdeh@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You just reiterate what other anti-ML extremists have said like a sad little parrot. No, LLMs don’t just copy. They network information and associations and can output entirely new combinations of them. To do this, they make use of neural networks, which are computational concepts analogous to the way your brain works. If, according to you, LLMs just copy, then that’s all that you do as well.
IzzyJ@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Consider youtube poop, Im serious. Everything clip in them is sourced from preexisting audio, and mixed or distorted in a comedic format. You could make an AI to make youtube poops using those same clips and other “poops” as training data. What it outputs might be of lower quality, but in a technical sense it would be made in an identical fashion. And, to the chagrin of Disney, Nintendo, and Viacom, these are considered legally distinct entities; because I dont watch Frying Nemo in place of Finding Nemo. So why would it be any different when an AI makes it?
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You can do the same thing with the Hardy Boys. You can find the same page word for word in different books. You can also do that with the Bible. The authors were plagiarizing each other.
It doesn’t add anything new to the sum total of the creative zeitgeist because it’s just remixes of things that already exist.
Do yourself a favor and never ever go into design of infrastructure equipment or eat at a Pizza Hut or get a drink from Starbucks or work for an American car company or be connected to Boeing.
Everyone has this super impressive view of human creativity and I am waiting to see any of it. As far as I can tell the less creative you are the more success you will have. But let me guess you ride a Segway, wear those shoes with toes, have gone through every recipe of Julia Childs, and compose novels that look like Finnegan’s Wake got into a car crash with EE Cummings and Gravity’s Rainbow.
Now leave me alone with I eat the same burger as everyone else and watch reruns of Family Guy in my house that looks like all the other ones on the street
admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 months ago
I’m the opposite, actually. I like generative AI. But as a creator who shares his work with the public for their (non-commercial) enjoyment, I am not okay with a billionaire industry training their models on my content without my permission, and then use those models as a money machine.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
This law will ensure only giant tech company have this power. Hobbyists and home players will be prevented.
admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 months ago
What are you basing that on?
Doesn’t say anything about the right just applying to giant tech companies, it specifically mentions artists as part of the protected content owners.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
That’s like saying you are just as protected regardless which side of the mote you stand on.
It’s pretty clear the way things are shaping up is only the big tech elite will control AI and they will lord us over with it.
The worst thing that could happen with AI. It falling into the hands of the elites, is happening.