Obviously the input data is also useful, so we should protect the production of it.
Want proof that it’s useful?
“it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials“ - OpenAI
Being unable to survive if you had to enter into mutually consensual agreements with your suppliers is a pretty good sign that you’re rent-seeking or stealing.
Advancement of. The input data might be useful, but that doesn't mean it needs to enjoy copyright protection in every single avenue. That's why we have fair use. I can't really imagine an LLM not being transformative.
Being unable to survive if you had to enter into mutually consensual agreements with your suppliers is a pretty good sign that you’re rent-seeking or stealing.
Did you get permission from OpenAI to share that quote or are you rent-seeking/stealing?
I think you'd agree that there are more reasons than just that to not always enter into agreements.
Did my use of that quote harm the incentive of OpenAI to produce it in the first place? No of course not.
Contrast with the entire value prop of LLMs being that you can utilize the knowledge in them without paying any time or credit toward the source, which does indeed destroy all commercial and most non-commercial incentives of producing and sharing such information.
The entire point of copyright law is to protect the incentives to produce work. The models are certainly doing something of value that also should be protected (and surely they’ll utilize law to do so), but ultimately a system that sucks up all prior works and obviates the need to view/buy them and destroys almost all incentive to produce new ones will not stand.
Of course this will boil down to model creators saying it doesn’t create incentive (except for “possibly capturing all future value of the light cone,” when talking amongst themselves) and original creators claiming that it does.
Being unable to survive if you had to enter into mutually consensual agreements with your suppliers is a pretty good sign that you’re rent-seeking or stealing.
1) Infringement is not theft and is usually handled differently. The (poorly-named imho) NET act, which criminalized some non-commercial infringement, had to do so explicitly.
2) Sometimes exclusive/monopoly rights are not in the public interest, and compulsory licenses are desirable.
I don’t see what either of these points add to the conversation. I didn’t accuse them of theft, nor did I claim all exclusivity is always in the public interest.
Comments
Obviously the input data is also useful, so we should protect the production of it.
Want proof that it’s useful?
Being unable to survive if you had to enter into mutually consensual agreements with your suppliers is a pretty good sign that you’re rent-seeking or stealing.
Advancement of. The input data might be useful, but that doesn't mean it needs to enjoy copyright protection in every single avenue. That's why we have fair use. I can't really imagine an LLM not being transformative.
Did you get permission from OpenAI to share that quote or are you rent-seeking/stealing?
I think you'd agree that there are more reasons than just that to not always enter into agreements.
Did my use of that quote harm the incentive of OpenAI to produce it in the first place? No of course not.
Contrast with the entire value prop of LLMs being that you can utilize the knowledge in them without paying any time or credit toward the source, which does indeed destroy all commercial and most non-commercial incentives of producing and sharing such information.
The entire point of copyright law is to protect the incentives to produce work. The models are certainly doing something of value that also should be protected (and surely they’ll utilize law to do so), but ultimately a system that sucks up all prior works and obviates the need to view/buy them and destroys almost all incentive to produce new ones will not stand.
Of course this will boil down to model creators saying it doesn’t create incentive (except for “possibly capturing all future value of the light cone,” when talking amongst themselves) and original creators claiming that it does.
1) Infringement is not theft and is usually handled differently. The (poorly-named imho) NET act, which criminalized some non-commercial infringement, had to do so explicitly.
2) Sometimes exclusive/monopoly rights are not in the public interest, and compulsory licenses are desirable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
I don’t see what either of these points add to the conversation. I didn’t accuse them of theft, nor did I claim all exclusivity is always in the public interest.
1) Clarifies "stealing" in "a pretty good sign you're rent-seeking or stealing" for cases of copyright infringement.
2) Supports "rent-seeking" by providing an example of legislative counterbalance.