That was my exact thought! The same people that preach about the “moral” fabric of our country, are empowering capitalists and technofascists to promote conscienceless structures causing the real erosion.
My first prejudice surfaced--that Trump is so jealous of artists and art. He doesn't appreciate them and none of them will say a kind word about him.
Here's what has happened:
"Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei admitted there were "many places" where the company could have purchased the books, but it chose to steal them to avoid the "legal/practice/business slog."
The judge's analogy doesn't work in the first place. It's a copyright violation to buy a book and then photocopy it and distribute the physical copies. Why would distributing digital copies be different?
It's not. If you buy sheet music and you want everyone in the band to have a copy you have to buy each member their own copy, or pass around the one copy until everyone has memorized it ;)
See: Internet Archive trying to do a controlled lend of a single digital copy per copy of a physical book they had on site, and still getting slapped down. (Some of those books are virtually inaccessible.)
Tech obviously wants to pay as little as possible for copyrighted material to train up AI--assuming they can't steal it outright.
But what would a truly fair model of reimbursement actually look like? Would it--could it--be something like Hollywood's system of royalties? Wherein if/when images from films, etc. appear in same or different medium, there must be recompense? And who can judge if an AI-modified image of, say a Disney character, is "similar" enough to trigger the need for compensation?
During quarantine, I wrote hundreds of lesson plans on Google classroom. I knew then they were stealing my lessons, and millions of other lessons by teachers across the country. We had not heard the phrase AI yet, but it seemed to me Google could take these lessons and replace the humans who wrote them. Bingo.
When they talk about all of the jobs that will be replaced with AI, this is exactly what they mean. Soon, there will be no further ability to claim anything as your own personal intellectual property unless your work has been memorialized on physical media, paper, canvas, etc. somewhere. Digitally, the lines will continue to blur until they no longer exist.
These judges are incredibly naive (I suppose I’ll be kind there). Let’s feed all judicial rulings into AI (I’m sure it’s already been done) and who needs judges anymore? These people have never read Orwell and they get appointed to this level?
Very depressing news. We read that data centers will use enormous amounts of energy , so not environmentally sustainable, and that training LLM’s or AI chatbots rips off artists , performers & writers.
Copyright protections have never given creators the protections they are due. Artists of all types have been getting 'ripped off' since forever. Although it's somewhat of a double edge, because for many artists the point of their creation is just to get it 'out into the world'. I'd say it's time we place a greater value on original works, and find a better way to compensate creators for their initial production. Afterall, original creation is still something AI cannot do. Duplicating can then be the vehicle by which the creation gets out into the world and no longer a ripoff.
I see that too, Daniel. We will all submit to the machines as illustrated in some of the shoulder shrugs in these comments. AI makes me want to crawl into a dark hole. If I have to speak to an AI voice, I usually start by calling them filthy names. I know we will submit or go hungry, but I will not go politely into this new world of machines being superior to me in every way - because they stole everyone's work.
Humanity was never that. It's a process of layering, generation by generation, so it changes all the time. This may end up being the AI generation. What you think of as stability is a result artificially generated by historians pruning according to their biases. (And Trump is in favor of more pruning than what we've been used to lately.)
Also, there is HUGE news regarding a study that Anthropic just posted for "transparency" regarding the unethical and dangerous conduct of various AI bots and their propensity for deliberately causing both emotional or physical harm to humans via agentic misalignment. But sure, let's have AI start making decisions that impact human lives. Oh, wait, is it not the same thing if we just say it's an *algorithm?*
Long ago, when I was teaching, and even longer ago, when I was a student, we were not allowed to photocopy more than limited sections of books to use in our classes, because copying more would violate copyright. Even if AI is determined to be equivalent to a human, that would prevent wholesale copying and distribution.
The judge seems to have cleverly I sinuated that if AI output is similar but *different,* then it doesn't matter. So apparently as long as it isn't used to mass reproduce copyrighted works, it can crib from them all it wants. It's way different from a human recalling and quoting a specific part of the book when AI can immediately recall and spit out any part of it or regurgitate the whole thing. Humans are flawed and so is this judge's logic. There's probably a better argument that could have been made in favor of human creativity if he had tried.
I don't think any creative endeavors should be used, chewed up and spit out as something else.
Any book, painting, piece of music, sculpture, journal, cartoon, magazine article is an act of creation.
To use a program that can consume quantities serves no purpose.
Yes, I know people claim that having information gathered for them is helpful in their jobs. I don't argue that it isn't, but there will be a cost to someone.
I am not sure exactly how to legislate this, but it clearly needs to be done.
I read about people who look at AI images sold as real things. If we're being sold fake whatever, we are late to the game.
AI is in our lives everywhere. We must control this monster.
Well, I guess if the Supreme Court could rule that corporations are people, who’s to say LLMs are not too? 😖
Then I suggest they start paying taxes.
IKR?
That was my exact thought! The same people that preach about the “moral” fabric of our country, are empowering capitalists and technofascists to promote conscienceless structures causing the real erosion.
My first prejudice surfaced--that Trump is so jealous of artists and art. He doesn't appreciate them and none of them will say a kind word about him.
Here's what has happened:
"Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei admitted there were "many places" where the company could have purchased the books, but it chose to steal them to avoid the "legal/practice/business slog."
UNMITIGATED GREED!
The judge's analogy doesn't work in the first place. It's a copyright violation to buy a book and then photocopy it and distribute the physical copies. Why would distributing digital copies be different?
You are so right. What law books is he reading?
It's not. If you buy sheet music and you want everyone in the band to have a copy you have to buy each member their own copy, or pass around the one copy until everyone has memorized it ;)
Exactly! See Napster and Limewire troubles back in the day.
See: Internet Archive trying to do a controlled lend of a single digital copy per copy of a physical book they had on site, and still getting slapped down. (Some of those books are virtually inaccessible.)
Tech obviously wants to pay as little as possible for copyrighted material to train up AI--assuming they can't steal it outright.
But what would a truly fair model of reimbursement actually look like? Would it--could it--be something like Hollywood's system of royalties? Wherein if/when images from films, etc. appear in same or different medium, there must be recompense? And who can judge if an AI-modified image of, say a Disney character, is "similar" enough to trigger the need for compensation?
You are detailing exactly what both legally and morally must happen.
During quarantine, I wrote hundreds of lesson plans on Google classroom. I knew then they were stealing my lessons, and millions of other lessons by teachers across the country. We had not heard the phrase AI yet, but it seemed to me Google could take these lessons and replace the humans who wrote them. Bingo.
When they talk about all of the jobs that will be replaced with AI, this is exactly what they mean. Soon, there will be no further ability to claim anything as your own personal intellectual property unless your work has been memorialized on physical media, paper, canvas, etc. somewhere. Digitally, the lines will continue to blur until they no longer exist.
These judges are incredibly naive (I suppose I’ll be kind there). Let’s feed all judicial rulings into AI (I’m sure it’s already been done) and who needs judges anymore? These people have never read Orwell and they get appointed to this level?
Astute connection!
"I knew then they were stealing my lessons" and yet, you still gave away your intellectual rights for free. Why?
Very depressing news. We read that data centers will use enormous amounts of energy , so not environmentally sustainable, and that training LLM’s or AI chatbots rips off artists , performers & writers.
Plus they lie worse than people and that’s a very high bar. How it works out when “I don’t know that” is not included in their training
AI is a nefarious tool used by unscrupulous nefarious people when there is no regulation or rules for its use.
Copyright protections have never given creators the protections they are due. Artists of all types have been getting 'ripped off' since forever. Although it's somewhat of a double edge, because for many artists the point of their creation is just to get it 'out into the world'. I'd say it's time we place a greater value on original works, and find a better way to compensate creators for their initial production. Afterall, original creation is still something AI cannot do. Duplicating can then be the vehicle by which the creation gets out into the world and no longer a ripoff.
AI. The end of humanity as we've known it.
I see that too, Daniel. We will all submit to the machines as illustrated in some of the shoulder shrugs in these comments. AI makes me want to crawl into a dark hole. If I have to speak to an AI voice, I usually start by calling them filthy names. I know we will submit or go hungry, but I will not go politely into this new world of machines being superior to me in every way - because they stole everyone's work.
Humanity was never that. It's a process of layering, generation by generation, so it changes all the time. This may end up being the AI generation. What you think of as stability is a result artificially generated by historians pruning according to their biases. (And Trump is in favor of more pruning than what we've been used to lately.)
As usual, the PI team is ahead of the curve on this important report. There is clear delineation of grey versus black and white issues.
Also, there is HUGE news regarding a study that Anthropic just posted for "transparency" regarding the unethical and dangerous conduct of various AI bots and their propensity for deliberately causing both emotional or physical harm to humans via agentic misalignment. But sure, let's have AI start making decisions that impact human lives. Oh, wait, is it not the same thing if we just say it's an *algorithm?*
https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment
What a fucking horrific precedent!!
Our rights are being erased one by one and we cannot let this continue!!
Do we need to utilize AI to figure out HOW to fight this?!?
Thou shalt not profit from your creativity
Long ago, when I was teaching, and even longer ago, when I was a student, we were not allowed to photocopy more than limited sections of books to use in our classes, because copying more would violate copyright. Even if AI is determined to be equivalent to a human, that would prevent wholesale copying and distribution.
The judge seems to have cleverly I sinuated that if AI output is similar but *different,* then it doesn't matter. So apparently as long as it isn't used to mass reproduce copyrighted works, it can crib from them all it wants. It's way different from a human recalling and quoting a specific part of the book when AI can immediately recall and spit out any part of it or regurgitate the whole thing. Humans are flawed and so is this judge's logic. There's probably a better argument that could have been made in favor of human creativity if he had tried.
Soooo…the first thing they teach their ethical AI is that theft is cool. Got it.
I have no legal chops.
I do have creative chops. Because I am human.
I don't think any creative endeavors should be used, chewed up and spit out as something else.
Any book, painting, piece of music, sculpture, journal, cartoon, magazine article is an act of creation.
To use a program that can consume quantities serves no purpose.
Yes, I know people claim that having information gathered for them is helpful in their jobs. I don't argue that it isn't, but there will be a cost to someone.
I am not sure exactly how to legislate this, but it clearly needs to be done.
I read about people who look at AI images sold as real things. If we're being sold fake whatever, we are late to the game.
AI is in our lives everywhere. We must control this monster.