Found it first here - https://mastodon.social/@BonehouseWasps/111692479718694120
Not sure if this is the right community to discuss here in Lemmy?
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
607 points (93.5% liked)
Technology
59441 readers
4056 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Zero art has been stolen.
You cannot steal a jpg.
And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.
Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.
You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?
The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.
The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).
Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It's an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.
I mean, it really isn't. It's the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It's how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It's how small bands have at least some protection.
I do like your libertarian line of reasoning. If the law doesn't work very well, it should be abolished. I've seen people say the same thing about the EPA and OSHA.
The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.
Of course you believe corporations are people.
Are you a professional at making shit up?
I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in companies existing at all.
I referred to OpenAI and you shot back "people."
But hey, if a joke finally got you to start reading the stuff I was writing...
Because the focus is on people, I don’t care if it benefits a company secondarily.
Except it's harming people.
And you have the system that judges peoples worth by the number in their bank accounts and the amount of things they own to thank for that.
So you don't dispute that corporations are going to hurt people if your ideology was implemented.
I think we can stop the conversation right there, actually. Gross.
“Unless you’re going to instantly change the system, I’m going to advocate for perpetuating it”
Cool! You do you bud.
You are advocating for putting on scuba gear after diving deep into the ocean, because you think it might be a little inconvenient for someone to waddle around on a dock with it.
Taking away worker protections before ensuring it won't immediately be abused by giant corporations means that you are taking the side of the giant corporation, and you are equivalent to any other corporate shill. If you don't like that, take steps to improve yourself.
Oh did they break into their house and take their only version?
Copying is not theft.
In other words, you believe James Somerton did nothing wrong?
It's really weird how so many people have become advocates for abolishing copyright the moment it benefits a giant corporation. No thought, no nuance, just "copyright bad."
It would be like somebody shouting about abolishing unions during the Starbucks protests, because police unions exist.
People have been saying Copyright is BS since at least the 90s when Disney pulled their shenanigans (again) and probably even before that
But isn't it funny that so many of them have emerged when their nuance-free absolutism helps a big corporation and not the people it's harming?
Copyright is not the same thing as intellectual property though
Copyright is law which is used to prevent free copying of media, while "intellectual property" is a term cooked up by corporate suits to generalize copyright, trademarks, and patents and equate them with property law. Richard Stallman wrote about this.
So do you support what James Somerton did to small queer creators?
I have no idea who that is.
https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ
Intellectual property comes before any of those things. If I paint a picture, it's my intellectual property whether I apply for some legal definition or not.
It's not the same thing as a copyright. Anyone can have intellectual property
That is certainly an opinion.
The music industry wants to honour you at their next awards night for fighting piracy.
Because I want the abolishment of all copyright and IP. Why are you fighting against liberating human culture?
You're fighting for them because you don't want them to have barriers in their corporate growth. Okay.
IP laws are a last resort in encouraging people to be creative. Remind me, which of us hate creativity?
Um no, we're defending actual open AI models, I couldn't give 2 shits about OpenAI. They have the funding to license things, but that open source model? Trying to compete against big corporations like Microsoft and Google? They don't.
You're actually advocating for the big corporations, what's going to happen if things go the way you want is the truly open models will die off and big corporations will completely control AI from then on. Is that what you really want?
As long as you are willing to admit that you are okay with plagiarists like James Somerton stealing the words of minority authors and large corporations like Marvel stealing the content of small comic artists verbatim and publishing them.
I'm not sure how that helps anyone, but you seem convicted in your absolutism.
I fail to see what he or your comment has to do with Generative AI models, which is what we are talking about.
I don't think you fully understand how Generative AIs work. The input data is used in a similar, but far more rudimentary way, to learn as humans do. The model itself contains no recognizable original data, just a bunch of numbers, math and weights in an attempt to simulate the neurons and synaptic pathways that our brains form when we learn things.
Yes, a carefully crafted prompt can get it to spit out a near identical copy of something it was trained on (assuming it had been trained on enough data of the target artist to begin with), but so can humans. In those cases humans have gotten in trouble when attempting to profit off it and therefore in that case justice must be served regardless of if it was AI or human that reproduced it.
But to use something that was publicly available on the Internet for input is fair game just as any human might look at a sampling of images to nail down a certain style. Humans are just far more efficient at it with far far less needed data
So does something become less plagiaristic if the plagiarizer can't provide attribution?
And no, AI does not learn, so you cannot compare it to a human. Passing the Chinese room test does not mean you are a native Chinese speaker.
Not all AIs do, the more "traditional" ones that you're probably thinking of don't. The ones that are generating text, images and video, however, are based on Generative Adversarial Networks a type of Deep learning Neural Network and those do learn albeit in a rudimentary fashion compared to humans, but learning none the less.
Whether attempting to oversimplify or anthropomorphize, no, computers do not learn. We are not, in fact, on the way to creating creativity.