200fifty
I mean, it seems like you’re reading my argument as a defense of copyright as a concept. I’m ambivalent on the goodness or badness of copyright law in the abstract. Like a lot of laws, it’s probably not the ideal way to fix the issue it was designed to solve, and it comes with (many) issues of its own, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’d be better off if we just got rid of it wholesale and left the rest of society as is. (We would probably be left with excitingly new and different problems.)
As I see it, the actual issue at hand with all of this is that people are exploiting the labor/art/culture of others in order to make a profit for themselves at the expense of the people affected. Sometimes copyright is a tool to facilitate that exploitation, and sometimes it’s a tool that protects people from it. To paraphrase Dan Olson, the problem is what people are doing to others, not that the law they’re using to do it is called “copyright.”
Yeah but this presumes “the best way to beat 'em is to join 'em,” right? Like, when all the operating systems or databases are proprietary, that’s bad because those things are really useful and help you do things better and faster than you would otherwise.
But this argument applied here is like, oh no, what if large entertainment companies start making all their movies out of AI garbage, and everyone else can’t do that because they can’t get the content licensed? Well… what if they do? Does that mean they’re going to be making stuff that’s better? Wouldn’t the best way to compete with that be not to use the technology because you’ll get a higher-quality product? Or are we just giving up on the idea of producing good art at all and conceding that yes we actually only value cheapness and quantity?
Also, just on a personal level, for me as a J. Random Person who uploads creative work to the internet (some of which is in common crawl), but who doesn’t work for a major entertainment corporation that has rights to my work, I would really prefer to have a way to say “sorry no, you can’t use my stuff for this.” I don’t really find “well you see, we need to be able to compete with large entertainment companies in spam content generation, so we need to be able to use your uncompensated labor for our benefit without your permission and without crediting you” particularly compelling.
Psh, I only use the Flushvalve Pro Vowel Pack. You can’t beat them in terms of value for your money.
I’ve thought about a similar idea before in the more minor context of stuff like note-taking apps – when you’re taking notes in a paper notebook, you can take notes in whatever format you want, you can add little pictures or diagrams or whatever, arranged however you want. Heck, you can write sheet music notation. When you’re taking notes in an app, you can basically just write paragraphs of text, or bullet points, and maybe add pictures in some limited predefined locations if you’re lucky.
Obviously you get some advantages in exchange for the restrictive format (you can sync/back up things to the internet! you can search through your notes! etc) but it’s by no means a strict upgrade, it’s more of a tradeoff with advantages and disadvantages. I think we tend to frame technological solutions like this as though they were strict upgrades, and often we aren’t so willing to look at what is being lost in the tradeoff.
ngl his stuff always felt a bit cynical to me, in that it seemed to exist more to say “look, video games can have a deep message!” than it did to just have such a message in the first place. Like it existed more to gesture at the concept of meaningfulness rather than to be meaningful itself.
Can AI companies legally ingest copyrighted materials found on the internet to train their models, and use them to pump out commercial products that they then profit from? Or, as the tech companies claim, does generative AI output constitute fair use?
This is kind of the central issue to me honestly. I’m not a lawyer, just a (non-professional) artist, but it seems to me like “using artistic works without permission of the original creators in order to create commercial content that directly competes with and destroys the market for the original work” is extremely not fair use. In fact it’s kind of a prototypically unfair use.
Meanwhile Midjourney and OpenAI are over here like “uhh, no copyright infringement intended!!!” as though “fair use” is a magic word you say that makes the thing you’re doing suddenly okay. They don’t seem to have very solid arguments justifying them other than “AI learns like a person!” (false) and “well google books did something that’s not really the same at all that one time”.
I dunno, I know that legally we don’t know which way this is going to go, because the ai people presumably have very good lawyers, but something about the way everyone seems to frame this as “oh, both sides have good points! who will turn out to be right in the end!” really bugs me for some reason. Like, it seems to me that there’s a notable asymmetry here!
Oh my god, I can’t stop laughing out loud at “women evolved small heads because they kept falling over and hitting their big heads on rocks,” based on the fact that his sister hit her head when she was younger. What’s his explanation for why men didn’t do this then?? Absolutely next-level moon logic I love it so much