The analogy is reduced to the point of irrelevancy.
OpenAI isn't trying to produce art. They are trying to replace human creation with artificial creation, but an artificial creation whose entire input was the human creation.
Kawano was not trying to replace Mondrian. And Mondrian was dead.
Personally I'm happy to restrict copyright expiry and AI input to the work of dead people. Right now copyright is too long and AI is happy to ignore entirely. Let's allow AI and humans to both reproduce the work of dead people but leave the living to their benefits of their creation so long as they are alive.
> OpenAI isn't trying to produce art. They are trying to replace human creation with artificial creation, but an artificial creation whose entire input was the human creation.
And they’re trying to build a business off it as well. There are a whole lot of things we generally excuse when they’re noncommercial (morally, even if not strictly legally), but OpenAI is a business, not a hobby. Similarly, we cast a gentler eye towards someone working towards self-improvement or personal discovery - artists are known to duplicate the work of other artists to hone their techniques, and Kawano was copying Mondrian’s style to understand the use of new technology for making art. OpenAI is doing none of that - the point of their system is to skip all the hard work of learning and self improvement.
I think you could argue that openAI isn’t in the business of making art — it’s their users that make AI art that are in the business of making art.
There are plenty of reasons for a model to ingest the art that are not directly related to creating new derivatives of that art. If you want the model to be able to recognize famous paintings or discuss styles/genres, it needs to get those examples.
Serious question: what compelled you to make this argument, overlooking (as sibling points out) the obvious fact that they generate art using the art they trained on?
But it sure doesn't need to be able to generate them for anything other than generating them.
Should the people who created the data set that was required for training reap the rewards or be laid off permanently? That is the real world scenario that is already playing out and will continue to ramp. That's the world we are currently living in.
If commercial generative Ai groups that design the algo that relies on that data are heavily reliant on open publishing and open source and depended on and iterated on those things to create what they have created do they deserve to capture all the products value?
Some things are inevitable products of new mediums and regulatory environments (regulation is just cultural byproducts of a nations citizenry) wasn't wikipedia always going to exist? Wasn't Craigslist? Wasn't IMDB? Weren't social media networks?
What amount of profits should a group who scrapes all their core data from other people be morally obligated to hoard for themselves?
If a small number of people profit off this and replace the very people whose data they scraped so that those people lose their jobs and homes and any financial security they have and deaths of despair skyrocket...
Does this seem morally good or just?
What is the dividing line?
If this concentration of wealth is so extreme it destabilizes the very culture and people that birthed it, do we just consider the family losing their homes to be this kind of hilarious ironic thing and fuck 'em the losers?
I think UBI and Paid Re-Skilling needs to be talked about now, I think the mechanisms and evaluations for rolling out UBI and Paid Re-Skilling should be discussed now.
It seems very likely thay paid re-skilling will only exist in the transition and isn't the final state of LLM much less AGI.
Unless we do this in earnest we are effectively committing to cultural decohesion and chasing down the misfortunate "Redundant" with murderbots and culling the now irrelevant laid off to stop unrest.
It does seem like that's the goal, but if Amazon and Elon have their way (and I guess C Y4rvin), we'll have company towns first.
For a number of reasons, I don't like the duration of copyright depending on how long the author lives.
* It's age discrimination against older people.
* If the copyright ends up being owned by some corporation (or effectively owned: some corporation has exclusive rights), which is what usually happens for any valuable copyright, it seems weird that the duration should be based on the lifetime of the author.
* It creates problems later when it's not obvious who the author was or when the author died.
* It could easily be abused by authors adding their grandchildren as co-authors. (I'm a bit wary of mentioning this in case I give anyone ideas. It has happened already, but so far not very often, as far as I can tell.)
If you're going to make these arguments about IP, you can also make them about property rights in general.
What is it about creative IP that makes it different to other kinds of family inheritance, or other kinds of rentier ownership?
Why does the argument that "Ownership rights should expire as soon as possible for the common good" not apply to huge land and property holdings, some of which have been passed down for centuries, with far more obvious economic and political effects than - say - Tolkien's descendants not needing a day job?
A lot of physical "property rights" are equally dubious though and probably shouldn't have the reverence people have for them. The reason why land ownership reform (splitting up of big land holdings owned by the wealthy but farmed by the poor) was a big issue in 19th century Britain (and Ireland which was completely part of it then) and still is an issue in the developing world today, is ultimately it is arbitrary that somebody gets to "own" land just because they are descended from aristocrats who conquered it centuries ago.
It is unfortunate and confusing that copyright and patents are described as intellectual "property" because intellectual property is fundamentally different than other property rights. Property laws as originally formulated applied to rivalrous goods where consumption by one consumer prevents consumption by others. Copyright and patents apply to non-rivalrous goods.
Rivalrous goods are relatively easier to protect and monetize without the assistance of the state. Non-rivalrous goods are pretty much impossible to protect/monetize without the assistance of a state.
Thanks I never had learned non-rivalrous goods and its'a. great way to explain the IP != property
you wouldn't steal a car, err i mean download, right!
> If you're going to make these arguments about IP, you can also make them about property rights in general.
No, physical property are both excludable and rivalrous goods [1], for them ownership is a natural right.
OTOH, IP are naturally non-rivalrous, and only semi-excludable through establishment of copyright law. IP ownership is just societal construct trying to fit market mechanisms to them.
Also it's important to point out there is another class called anti-rivalrous goods which may be important for the discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rival_good
>An anti-rival good is one where the more people share it, the more utility each person receives. It is the opposite of a rival good. Examples include software and other information goods created through the process of commons-based peer production. The term was coined by economist Steven Weber.
> If you're going to make these arguments about IP, you can also make them about property rights in general.
In general, property rights don't end when someone dies, they're just transferred to someone else. People can even take advantage of the fact that property rights endure by selling the right to take possession after their death.
Sudden uptick in mysterious artist deaths still unexplained
> but leave the living to their benefits of their creation so long as they are alive.
Or pay somehow in the future for the use of them?