Me no understand! OpenAI trained its model on masses of other people’s data, taken from the internet without the explicit permission from, or payment to, the originators of that data. So now some other company has used OpenAI to train its own model. Seems like that is precisely analogous to what OpenAI did.
Sauce - goose - gander.
AI, and computing/internet generally, have been upending copyright for some time now. Copyright law is fairly abusive of “the progress of science and useful arts” by the excessive length of copyright protection, so maybe it’s not such a terrible thing to undermine it.
I suspect more than a few chinks in their armor
Yeah, the courts make any ruling they want but this is going to happen anyway. Copyright be damned. It is probably a more corrupt and anti-human system than patents, though it’s a close run.
Historical perspective: All the efforts to prevent pirating of music and video have been pathetically ineffective, except in motivating satire like this Weird Al favorite.
h/t @eggspurt
Slightly off-topic:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69607031/doe-v-yale-university/
Intellectual property law, as currently practiced, does the opposite of its stated intent: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.* Patent and copyright law have been perverted to inhibit innovation and progress. Efforts to subvert this are to be celebrated and encouraged. Information technology has been in aid of such efforts thus far. May it continue.
*Article I, U.S. Constitution
Disney et al. v. Midjourney:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70513159/disney-enterprises-inc-v-midjourney-inc/
China’s beg/borrow/buy/steal approach to IP has often been criticized by the West; however, the tables have turned, and the West needs to adopt similar tactics if it doesn’t want to be left behind in the dust.
A reverse Napster. The courts will find that unless you are a mega cap, you cannot do this.
Just read the Oct 2024 piece you posted, about the kid whose AI “lover “ encouraged him to commit suicide. Yikes. Did his mother win the lawsuit? And the other thing I reeeely wanna know is: who generated the content? Everybody must know by now that Chat responds with what it deduces the interlocutor wants to hear. So the kid was becoming suicidal, and Chat, with no human input, just picked that up and validated it? What I mean is, did some human being know the way the conversation was going, or not?
Changing gears:
I’ve read essays by writers who are, apparently “stalked” by a plagiarist; one aspiring poet claimed another guy was repeatedly re-publishing his work as the plagiarist’s own.
I never heard of either of them, btw. But the victim poet said law enforcement wasn’t interested:
Essentially, he was told, “Two people might come up with the same thoughts.” Apparently such cases are traditionally difficult to win.
As I intermittently follow this thread, my proclivity to play with words - spoonerisms, opposites and more (whose names I can’t remember) has popped up. I wonder what the characterization of the polar opposite of AI which would be: “natural stupidity”? Numerous writers have suggested the latter is more dangerous than the former. Who knows. Regardless, should be have a thread with that title to mirror this thread? Or, does it already exist, subsumed in the title “The Crazy Years”?