484
‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
484 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59135 readers
6622 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
I'm no fan of the current copyright law - the Statute of Anne was much better - but let's not kid ourselves that some of the richest companies in the world have any desire what so ever to change it.
My brother in Christ I’m begging you to look just a little bit into the history of copyright expansion.
I am well aware.
deleted
I only discuss copyright on posts about AI copyright issues. Yes, brilliant observation. I also talk about privacy y issues on privacy relevant posts, labor issues on worker rights related articles and environmental justice on global warming pieces. Truly a brilliant and skewering observation. Youre a true internet private eye.
Fair use and pushing back against (corporate serving) copyright maximalism is an issue I am passionate about and engage in. Is that a problem for you?
deleted
Creators in your circles? Does that include your clients, because apparently small artists hire you?
Well now I'm intrigued.
Exactly how do you prevent your clients from getting their content stolen by a corporation created by Sam Altman, who is worth half a billion dollars on his own?
I trust you enough to believe that you aren't stupid, and you know what to say and not say in any given place. That's why I thought it was extremely curious that you never bring up copyright in any thread except when it's about AI. I can understand being a defeatist when working with small creators, of course.
Speaking of which, what do you call theft? After all, with your legal background, doesn't pedantry kick into high gear and remind you the issues are piracy etc?
So are you more focused on targeting the little pirates and not the big rich billionaires in your business, or...?
Not legal advice not your lawyer etc etc. But I would likely never suggest someone pursue aggressively against individual piracy. You write contracts for your partners. You fight businesses when they breach. You make great work and price it appropriately. You make your wins there and you do everything you can to not find yourself in a courtroom or arbitration if you can avoid it. You’re not winning any friends and you’re not saving yourself any trouble by raging against torrents. Especially for small creators the calculus never (imo) works out in their favor. More often than not, small artists and creators need to be much more concerned about and need help with being able to defend themselves against spurious accusations of infringement by larger corporate Ip rent seekers and more-or-less automated systems (again: cyberpunk dystopia).
Speaking personally I find the equivocation of “copyright infringement” and “theft” ridiculous. One download = \ = one “stolen” sale, and it never has. Theft requires depriving the original of the property, being able to exercise exclusive control over it. Conceptually it has always broken down when talking about digital goods.
So, with all your talk of copyright and AI (and you always make sure to only talk about copyright when AI is involved), have you ever talked about the decision to digitize actor's voices? Since you work for small creators, I imagine you have a history of being against this sort of copyright, as game studios might opt to use someone else's digitized voice instead of a new creator, harming your clients.
I’m Incredibly worried about AI deepfakes and voice cloning for a whole host of reasons. It’s one of the things I think we are collectively least prepared to deal with. The privacy concerns, national security, cyber security - to say nothing of disinformation and yeah, labor impacts — we are fucked and not at all ready for this.
Name and likeness rights, rights of publicity though and privacy rights don’t stem from copyright and don’t require an expansion of copyright to further protect. There’s case law already preventing a business from cloning someone without their permission, and everyone will be paying very close attention to those parts of contracts moving forward, I’d wager. As to wholesale replacing actors and talent with generated content — yeah, I’m very worried a lot of artists and creative people are as fucked as the lawyers and the accountants and writers and everyone else when it comes to job displacement.
Again, despite your really aggressive tone, I’m telling you: we almost certainly agree more than we disagree. It is ghoulish watching studios rush to replace extras and voice actors and resurrect dead actors. True cyberpunk dystopia necromancer shit. I’m hoping that we see more victories won in this genuinely encouraging resurgence of labor (todays SAG AFTRA deal notwithstanding) and legislation directly addressing the labor impacts of AI more broadly. Different kinds of guard rails and safety nets. I just don’t think copyright is the answer you think it is to the horrors that we both agree are coming.