It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
@inthehands if it's trained on source code, then we can definitely replace corporate software with Open Sourced AI code
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
Stealing information and reusing it for commercial exploitation is never OK...
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
It certainly won't be a problem in the US, they own that government. But in other jurisdictions who may have domestic incentives to be seen kicking American companies around a little, it might actually present a little difficulty yeah.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
@inthehands i'd argue by the way that they can be both liable and in violation of copyright.
if i publish an edit of a Dahmer documentary and all i change is the name, saying someone else did it, but keep all else the same, i did two illegal things in one movie. -
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
@inthehands I'll take that deal, damn good deal. Abolish all copyright now
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
This, I believe, is part of why some of the forefront vendors are pushing the myth of consciousness so very hard. So that they can have the AI own the copyright, and it be both the legal shield for their corporation, and a hammer to wield against others.
Oh JoeMode-73 violated copyright? We just executed it. Meet JoeMode-74. It just issued a thousand DMCA requests against you.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
@inthehands Uhh, I don't think that performing a #DDoS attack on my site is "fair use"...
Also, these #AI models will infringe copyrighted works without it being explicitly prompted to do so, and without any trademarked names.
Type "Popular 90s cartoon character throwing a rod of plutonium out his car window while driving home from his daily shift at a nuclear power station; Screenshot; VHS recording; 4x3" into an AI image generator, and see if what comes up can invite a lawsuit from Disney.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
No, thy shouldn't have it both ways.
But they have a lot of money and very good lawyers.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
@inthehands Copyright law has always been a joke : a sick joke for small business people who have to pay for their own punishment. As in everything, people with the money are legally allowed to crush everyone else. AI embodies billionaire dreams, so expect the crushing to be even more extreme.
-
@inthehands I'll take that deal, damn good deal. Abolish all copyright now
And instantly get more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization? Why?
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Zygos/117461869086312391
It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:
They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.
But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.
Can’t have it both ways.
@inthehands They REALLY did not think this through. See also: Somebody using AI to reverse-engineer the Adobe package - the best case scenario for Adobe, who went all-in on AI, is that someone stole their product & gave it away & there's nothing they can do about it, because if they stop it for copyright violation, it undercuts the AI business & if they claim the copy is an inferior product, it also undercuts the AI business...
