127
Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement. (www.theverge.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey are suing OpenAI and Meta over violation of their copyrighted books. The trio says their works were pulled from illegal “shadow libraries” without their consent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Good. Artists should get paid extra for AIs being trained on their stuff. Doing it for free is our job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Should those artists pay the other artists they studied?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    in design school, I had to pay for the books I bought which contained the images of the art. whomever owns those images got paid for the license to appear in the book. when I go to museums, I had to pay (by admission price or by the tax dollars that go into paying for the museum’s endowment), and that pays for the paintings/sculptures/etc.

    whenever I saw or see art, in one context or another, there’s some compensatory arrangement (or it’s being/has been donated— in which case, it’s tax-deductible).

    edit: then again, my work is not a remixed amalgam of all of the prior art I consumed— unlike AI, I am capable of creating new unique works which do not contain any of the elements of original works I may be seen or learned from previously. I am able to deconstruct, analyze, and implement nuanced constructs such as style, method, technique, and tone and also develop my own in the creation of an original work without relying on the assimilation and reuse of other original works in part or whole. AI cannot.

    for this reason I find this a flawed premise— comparing what an artist does to what LLMs or AI do is logically flawed because they aren’t the same thing. LLMs can only ever create derivative works, whereas human artists are capable of creating truly original works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    In all those instances you paid for the physical resources.

    These AI are just automating remix culture.

    Human creations should be free for all of us to use where possible (e.g. material costs for say a book).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    In all those instances you paid for the physical resources.

    not only the physical resources but also the licensing fees for the images and the labor required to research and assemble the books. none of that was free, either. some of those design texts were hundreds of dollars-- and, no, I'm not referring to your bullshit college textbooks that have meaningless markups.

    while I agree with the philosophy that all human knowledge should be free and that we should all have free access to art and media and whatever, I'm simply explaining that I did, in fact, as an art/design student studying art/design pay for the material I learned from, including the art to which I was exposed (or there was some other form of compensation involved). i am not arguing whether or not that should or should not be the case.

    i also made a clear distinction between what a human artist is capable of achieving and what an ai is capable of achieving. perhaps I should have continued to state that it for this season that I believe artists should be compensated when AIs train using their works/data due to the difference between how they use it and how a human artist uses it when creating original works vs ai-generated pieces.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Except you didn't pay for generations of art culture endemic to human nature that took us from cave paintings to lying buttresses to modern design

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Everything is a remix. Including all the work you’ve ever done. And everything I’ve ever done. Nothing is wholly original.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    But it is partially original. With AI nothing is original.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No. This fundamentally misrepresents the ai models.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    No it doesn’t.

    AI doesn’t generate anything new. It uses mathematical models to rearrange and regurgitate what it’s already been given. There’s no creation, there’s nothing original. It’s simply stats.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Like a remix?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Original interpretation and human input. There’s neither with AI. AI does not create anything. Period. Full stop. No question about it. It’s an objective fact that it doesn’t create anything new.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Ants create things. Creation isn’t some complex higher functioning organism trait.

    If it didn’t exist before and it does after, it was created. It doesn’t matter if it’s a mash of other content or made by a human.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago

    I fundamentally disagree. Creation needs some degree of originality. Otherwise it’s just a rehash of what exists already, and that’s not creation of anything new.

    I never said non-humans can’t create. I said AI can’t. And I stand by that. There is nothing original about anything a LLM does. It’s statistical analysis on a crazy amount of data. Not creating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Absolutely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Unworkable copyright maximalist take that wouldn’t help artists but would further entrench corporate IP holders.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You want to try explaining how, or is throwing basic claims it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What, explain why "artists should pay artists that they study" is an unworkable copyright maximalist take? No, that's self evident. How it won't actually help artists, but would further entrench the corporate IP hoarders? No, I won't do that either. It's self evident. If your position is literally that artists should pay the artists that inspire them and that they study, you're a deeply unserious person whose position doesn't deserve to be seriously debated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Uh huh. So you don't actually want to discuss, you just want to be insulting and shut down conversation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    No it's just a nonsense suggestion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Another insult. I honestly shouldn't be surprised.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No one is insulting you. How are you going to pay he unnumbered generations of humanity from which art has grown?

    It's a nonsense suggestion

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's quite insulting when you dismiss without any greater reasoning than naming an argument. It's subtle, but it wouldn't exactly fly in any kind of serious rl discussion. There's a difference between addressing an argument and simply calling it names and refusing to provide elaboration.

    Obviously you can't pay dead people, nor did I say you had to. You could easily simply start, without making it retroactive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That destroys the concept of art a free expression. Every graffiti tagger would owe dues. Art woul become an entry paid guild-like institution

    I know you don't realize it, but this i dystopian shit.

    It's such a self-evidently bad idea that people didnt realize you'd need it explained.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    No, not necessarily. There is a huge legal difference between creating something for commercial gain vs creating it on a voluntary basis. When someone has monetized something, they are pulling in an income from which they can pay people.

    When someone is doing something on a volunteer or amateur basis, they are not pulling in a similar income. We do stuff like this with our tax system all the time.

    We can also draw a line between formal and informal instruction, all "learning" does not have to be the same, after all. There's no reason formal artistic training cannot be required to pay an additional fee where self-study does not. We actually already do this with more technical fields, it's even become a racket--college textbooks. Why do artists get to be exempt?

    edit for spelling

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Again, you're missing the dystopian guild-nature of art that would result from your proposal. I do not understand why this is the hill you want to die on.

    College textbooks are not a racket, but rather a result of monopolization of publishing. Why would you want to limit access further?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Unlike some people, I simply enjoy interesting conversation. Not crusading to change the world by fighting for my beliefs or whatever. I like intellectual exploration and discussion.

    It's not a "hill" and I'm not "dying". It's a conversation. Not my fault if I'm surrounded by internet geeks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    At least you’re consistent!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 years ago*

    I find that a little bit of a specious argument actually. An LLM is not a person, it is itself a commercial derivative. Because it is created for profit and capable of outproducing any human by many orders of magnitude, I think comparing it to human training is a little simplistic and deceptive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    But there's no evidence, in this case anyway, that it was trained using the entire book(s). Multiple summaries of the author's works are available on various sites in the public domain, and GPT is capable of amalgamating all of them and summarizing it.

    Now if you asked it to reproduce an entire book, or say some random non-free chapter or excerpt exactly word-by-word, that would be a issue, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that it was able to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That'll come out during the case. I assume they have evidence, otherwise suing would be a waste of time. Unless some lawyer is taking them for a ride.

    You only do need 51% certainty to win in civil court, though, so maybe they think they can just argue it? Still though, I'd want some sound evidence before going to court. Unless it's just a slapp-style suit, but that doesn't really fit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •