Lots of people on Lemmy really dislike AI’s current implementations and use cases.
I’m trying to understand what people would want to be happening right now.
Destroy gen AI? Implement laws? Hoping all companies use it for altruistic purposes to help all of mankind?
Thanks for the discourse. Please keep it civil, but happy to be your punching bag.
If we’re going pie in the sky I would want to see any models built on work they didn’t obtain permission for to be shut down.
Failing that, any models built on stolen work should be released to the public for free.
This is the best solution. Also, any use of AI should have to be stated and watermarked. If they used someone’s art, that artist has to be listed as a contributor and you have to get permission. Just like they do for every film, they have to give credit. This includes music, voice and visual art. I don’t care if they learned it from 10,000 people, list them.
Definitely need copyright laws. What if everything has to be watermarked in some way and it’s illegal to use AI generated content for commercial use unless permitted by creators?
The problem with trying to police the output is there isn’t a surefire way to detect the fact it’s generated. That’s why I prefer targeting the companies who created the problematic models.
I’m going to ask the tough question: Why?
Search engines work because they can download and store everyone’s copyrighted works without permission. If you take away that ability, we’d all lose the ability to search the Internet.
Copyright law lets you download whatever TF you want. It isn’t until you distribute said copyrighted material that you violate copyright law.
Before generative AI, Google screwed around internally with all those copyrighted works in dozens of different ways. They never asked permission from any of those copyright holders.
Why is that OK but doing the same with generative AI is not? I mean, really think about it! I’m not being ridiculous here, this is a serious distinction.
If OpenAI did all the same downloading of copyrighted content as Google and screwed around with it internally to train AI then never released a service to the public would that be different?
If I’m an artist that makes paintings and someone pays me to copy someone else’s copyrighted work. That’s on me to make sure I don’t do that. It’s not really the problem of the person that hired me to do it unless they distribute the work.
However, if I use a copier to copy a book then start selling or giving away those copies that’s my problem: I would’ve violated copyright law. However, is it Xerox’s problem? Did they do anything wrong by making a device that can copy books?
If you believe that it’s not Xerox’s problem then you’re on the side of the AI companies. Because those companies that make LLMs available to the public aren’t actually distributing copyrighted works. They are, however, providing a tool that can do that (sort of). Just like a copier.
If you paid someone to study a million books and write a novel in the style of some other author you have not violated any law. The same is true if you hire an artist to copy another artist’s style. So why is it illegal if an AI does it? Why is it wrong?
My argument is that there’s absolutely nothing illegal about it. They’re clearly not distributing copyrighted works. Not intentionally, anyway. That’s on the user. If someone constructs a prompt with the intention of copying something as closely as possible… To me, that is no different than walking up to a copier with a book. You’re using a general-purpose tool specifically to do something that’s potentially illegal.
So the real question is this: Do we treat generative AI like a copier or do we treat it like an artist?
If you’re just angry that AI is taking people’s jobs say that! Don’t beat around the bush with nonsense arguments about using works without permission… Because that’s how search engines (and many other things) work. When it comes to using copyrighted works, not everything requires consent.
No they don’t. They index the content of the page and score its relevance and reliability, and still provide the end user with the actual original information
This is false equivalence
LLMs do not wholesale reproduce an original work in it’s original form, they make it easy to mass produce a slightly altered form without any way to identify the original attribution.
I think this is intentionally missing the point.
LLMs don’t actually think, or produce original ideas. If the human artist produces a work that too closely resembles a copyrighted work, then they will be subject to those laws. LLMs are not capable of producing new works, by definition they are 100% derivative. But their methods in doing so intentionally obfuscate attribution and allow anyone to flood a space with works that require actual humans to identify the copyright violations.
Like the other comments say, LLMs (the thing you’re calling AI) don’t think. They aren’t intelligent. If I steal other people’s work and copy pieces of it and distribute it as if I made it, that’s wrong. That’s all LLMs are doing. They aren’t “being inspired” or anything like that. That requires thought. They are copying data and creating outputs based on weights that tell it how and where to put copied material.
I think the largest issue is people hearing the term “AI” and taking it at face value. There’s no intelligence, only an algorithm. It’s a convoluted algorithm that is hard to tell what going on just by looking at it, but it is an algorithm. There are no thoughts, only weights that are trained on data to generate predictable outputs based on given inputs. If I write an algorithm that steals art and reorganizes into unique pieces, that’s still stealing their art.
For a current example, the stuff going on with Marathon is pretty universally agreed upon to be bad and wrong. However, you’re arguing if it was an LLM that copied the artist’s work into their product it would be fine. That doesn’t seem reasonable, does it?
My argument is that the LLM is just a tool. It’s up to the person that used that tool to check for copyright infringement. Not the maker of the tool.
Big company LLMs were trained on hundreds of millions of books. They’re using an algorithm that’s built on that training. To say that their output is somehow a derivative of hundreds of millions of works is true! However, how do you decide the amount you have to pay each author for that output? Because they don’t have to pay for the input; only the distribution matters.
My argument is that is far too diluted to matter. Far too many books were used to train it.
If you train an AI with Stephen King’s works and nothing else then yeah: Maybe you have a copyright argument to make when you distribute the output of that LLM. But even then, probably not because it’s not going to be that identical. It’ll just be similar. You can’t copyright a style.
Having said that, with the right prompt it would be easy to use that Stephen King LLM to violate his copyright. The point I’m making is that until someone actually does use such a prompt no copyright violation has occurred. Even then, until it is distributed publicly it really isn’t anything of consequence.
I run local models. The other day I was writing some code and needed to implement simplex noise, and LLMs are great for writing all the boilerplate stuff. I asked it to do it, and it did alright although I had to modify it to make it actually work because it hallucinated some stuff. I decided to look it up online, and it was practically an exact copy of this, down to identical comments and everything.
It is not too diluted to matter. You just don’t have the knowledge to recognize what it copies.
Build an inkjet printer exclusively out of stolen parts from HP, Brother, and Epson and marketed as being so good that experts can’t differentiate what they print from legal currency (except sometimes it adds cartoonish moustaches). Start selling it in retail stores alongside them. They would battery be announced, much less stocked on the shelves before C&D letters and/or arrest warrants arrived.