i disagree. IP laws have more or less handled humans stealing ideas from humans for commercial gain. not perfectly by any means… but both the scale an impunity and frankly the entitlement exhibited by these GenAI companies is on another level.
no matter how many times people make the argument that AIs are just “doing what humans do”, it fails to sway me. an AI copying, ingesting and tokenizing other people’s intellectual property is nothing like a human watching a video or hearing a song and creating something based upon or derived from it. a database backed algorithm does nothing even remotely like a human mind. it’s using software to process and regurgitate the works of others, and that is pretty plainly IP theft.
I’m not saying the process is exactly the same but conceptually it’s quite similar. Humans don’t create original ideas. They build on what came before. Maybe a truly brilliant artist or inventor adds 1% new ideas. That’s not enough to justify the extremely broad ownership of ideas that exists in our society. These laws implicitly assume that ideas were created from nothing through the sheer brilliance of the creator. Pure nonsense.
Humans have been freely copying each other for millions of years. It’s how we built everything we have. Ideas and art were not meant to be owned. The very concept of owning something non-physical is violent and authoritarian in nature. Without physical possession, the only way IP laws can be enforced is a global police empire, which the US has successfully created for its own enrichment at the expense of the global poor.
So in that context, the fact that AI is borrowing human ideas and then profiting from it doesn’t bother me any more than that humans do the same thing.
Humans have been freely copying each other for millions of years.
False. Master artisans have been keeping their knowledge secret in order to maintain a competitive advantage, only eventually passing their knowledge to the most advanced of their apprentices. Tons of knowledge has been lost over the centuries to Masters taking their knowledge with them. Temporary monopolies (Patents) and Copyright protections, in exchange for making the knowledge public, is what has enabled its exponential expansion.
Keyword being “temporary”. We have Disney to thank for turning Copyright’s temporariness into a mockery of itself.
I’m not sure I buy this argument but I will admit that I’m not extremely familiar with the hoarding or sharing of trade secrets prior to patents. Any recommended reading on this topic? If your logic is correct, patents should be as short as practically possible to encourage information sharing.
I don’t see how this applies to copyright though. Are you concerned people will create works and then bury them? I don’t see the risk here.
If your logic is correct, patents should be as short as practically possible to encourage information sharing.
Modern patents require the disclosure of information prior to being granted, so anyone can access the knowledge to build on it from the start. The patent owner’s rights are enforced after the fact, by punishing anyone who tries to make money off the invention without a license from the owner. Their term is generally reasonable for mechanical inventions, with a maximum of 20 years, and the cost of maintaining the patent grows exponentially. Main problems are the term, and whether a patent should be granted at all, when applied to non-mechanical items, like software, medicines, organisms, etc. which don’t follow the same pattern of investment vs. incentive.
Copyright, was initially intended to let publishers have some time to get their investment back, between printing, distributing, and selling copies of a book. Initially, in the 18th century, that was set to 28 years. However, instead of staying true to that intention and adapting to new forms of distribution, with the internet being the latest one, Disney lobbied like crazy to get to the current “until author’s death + 70 years” term:
That, is a complete mockery of the initial rationale. With digital distribution, Copyright should’ve shrunk to a fraction of the original 28 years, not grow even longer!
Are you concerned people will create works and then bury them?
The concern is that people, particularly publishers paying an advance to an author, would not want to do that if they didn’t have some assurance on the return of their investment. Nowadays, something like 1 or 2 years after publication, would be more than enough, even for films, which get most of their revenue during the first few weeks after release. Games follow a similar pattern, when they don’t require an ongoing subscription.
IP laws have more or less handled humans stealing ideas from humans for commercial gain. not perfectly by any means…
“Until author’s death + 70 years”… not perfectly, is WAY of an understatement.
an AI copying, ingesting and tokenizing other people’s intellectual property is nothing like a human watching a video or hearing a song and creating something based upon or derived from it. a database backed algorithm does nothing even remotely like a human mind. it’s using software to process and regurgitate the works of others, and that is pretty plainly IP theft.
Wrong. There is no database of the training data in the model that “regurgitates” abstracted concepts from it.
i disagree. IP laws have more or less handled humans stealing ideas from humans for commercial gain. not perfectly by any means… but both the scale an impunity and frankly the entitlement exhibited by these GenAI companies is on another level.
no matter how many times people make the argument that AIs are just “doing what humans do”, it fails to sway me. an AI copying, ingesting and tokenizing other people’s intellectual property is nothing like a human watching a video or hearing a song and creating something based upon or derived from it. a database backed algorithm does nothing even remotely like a human mind. it’s using software to process and regurgitate the works of others, and that is pretty plainly IP theft.
I’m not saying the process is exactly the same but conceptually it’s quite similar. Humans don’t create original ideas. They build on what came before. Maybe a truly brilliant artist or inventor adds 1% new ideas. That’s not enough to justify the extremely broad ownership of ideas that exists in our society. These laws implicitly assume that ideas were created from nothing through the sheer brilliance of the creator. Pure nonsense.
Humans have been freely copying each other for millions of years. It’s how we built everything we have. Ideas and art were not meant to be owned. The very concept of owning something non-physical is violent and authoritarian in nature. Without physical possession, the only way IP laws can be enforced is a global police empire, which the US has successfully created for its own enrichment at the expense of the global poor.
So in that context, the fact that AI is borrowing human ideas and then profiting from it doesn’t bother me any more than that humans do the same thing.
False. Master artisans have been keeping their knowledge secret in order to maintain a competitive advantage, only eventually passing their knowledge to the most advanced of their apprentices. Tons of knowledge has been lost over the centuries to Masters taking their knowledge with them. Temporary monopolies (Patents) and Copyright protections, in exchange for making the knowledge public, is what has enabled its exponential expansion.
Keyword being “temporary”. We have Disney to thank for turning Copyright’s temporariness into a mockery of itself.
I’m not sure I buy this argument but I will admit that I’m not extremely familiar with the hoarding or sharing of trade secrets prior to patents. Any recommended reading on this topic? If your logic is correct, patents should be as short as practically possible to encourage information sharing.
I don’t see how this applies to copyright though. Are you concerned people will create works and then bury them? I don’t see the risk here.
On patents and lost knowledge:
https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/09/07/history-patents-can-teach-us-world-without-might-like/id=151264/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificio_de_Juanelo
Modern patents require the disclosure of information prior to being granted, so anyone can access the knowledge to build on it from the start. The patent owner’s rights are enforced after the fact, by punishing anyone who tries to make money off the invention without a license from the owner. Their term is generally reasonable for mechanical inventions, with a maximum of 20 years, and the cost of maintaining the patent grows exponentially. Main problems are the term, and whether a patent should be granted at all, when applied to non-mechanical items, like software, medicines, organisms, etc. which don’t follow the same pattern of investment vs. incentive.
Copyright, was initially intended to let publishers have some time to get their investment back, between printing, distributing, and selling copies of a book. Initially, in the 18th century, that was set to 28 years. However, instead of staying true to that intention and adapting to new forms of distribution, with the internet being the latest one, Disney lobbied like crazy to get to the current “until author’s death + 70 years” term:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
That, is a complete mockery of the initial rationale. With digital distribution, Copyright should’ve shrunk to a fraction of the original 28 years, not grow even longer!
The concern is that people, particularly publishers paying an advance to an author, would not want to do that if they didn’t have some assurance on the return of their investment. Nowadays, something like 1 or 2 years after publication, would be more than enough, even for films, which get most of their revenue during the first few weeks after release. Games follow a similar pattern, when they don’t require an ongoing subscription.
Injecting logic, facts, and moderation into an AI conversation? Get the fuck outta here!
“Until author’s death + 70 years”… not perfectly, is WAY of an understatement.
Wrong. There is no database of the training data in the model that “regurgitates” abstracted concepts from it.