zlacker

Lets try this:

I'd like you do give away 100% of your salary, ok?

Are you greedy if you say no?

>>exabri+(OP)
This is a blatant non-sequitor. There are many approaches to actually having a good faith discussion on the societal/economic/moral/humanitarian effects of large-scale AI taking over entire workforces. Being coy and asking loaded questions does nothing to convince anyone of them.

>>exabri+(OP)
If you use a snippet from Stack Overflow that came from a book, is the original publisher entitled to some of your salary?

>>bdcrav+V
This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent.

If someone posts something to StackOverflow, they're intending to help both the original person and anyone that comes along later with the same question with their coding problem, and that's the extent of it.

An artist making a painting or song has not consented to training algorithms on their copyrighted work. In fact, neither has the StackOverflow person.

Boggles my mind this concept is so absent from the minds of SV folk.

>>Tadpol+x
The ability of AI to produce the content that it does actually will be reducing potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Now, the percentage of those jobs lost because some of the content was accidentally copy written may be small but does account for some percentage of that job loss. So it isn't actually a non sequitur in my opinion.

>>exabri+u1
For a bunch of rent-seekers who issue licenses to use their prior work, they really struggle with the various licences that other people's work can be issued with.

>>exabri+u1
> This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent.

This is what you don't understand: the concept of fair use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

If the courts hold this type of thing to be fair use (which I'm about 90% sure they will), "consent" won't enter into it. At all.

>>exabri+u1
Their position (and also mine, even though I have otherwise lots of disagreement with most SV folk in other areas) is that for those ML purposes, no consent need be sought or granted. If the work is publicly accessible, it's usable for AI. This is legally supported by fair use (to be determined by the courts, keep an eye out on the Andersen v. Stability lawsuit)

>>coding+24
> The ability of AI to produce the content that it does actually will be reducing potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs.

You mean like tractors, electric motors, powered looms, machine tools, excavators, and such?

Yeah, and? In the limit, those things are why our population isn't 90% unfree agricultural laborers (serfs or slaves), 9+% soldiers to keep the serfs in line, and < 1% "nobles" and "priests", who get to consume all the goodies.

This same basic argument about "putting artists out of work" was made when photography was invented. It didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

>>coding+24
I don't disagree with you at all, your point is important to communicate and debate on! But the framing of the original comment was unproductive and only served to hurt the argument.

I, personally, think that AI is a tremendous opportunity that we should be investing in and pushing forward. And my existing dislike of property right laws does feed into my views on the training data discussion; prioritizing a revolution in productivity over preservation of jobs for the sake of maintaining the status quo. But I'm not stupid enough to think there will be no consequences for being unprepared for the future.

Rather unfortunately, I'm not quite clever enough to see what being prepared would actually look like either.

>>Tadpol+x
It's important to keep in mind that AI doesn't take over entire workforces because it is better, or does jobs humans can't, but because it is cheaper. I've played with several AI art and text models and none of them I would consider to be better than a human. However, they are good enough - and more importantly, legally ownable[0] capital goods - such that corporations would rather have an AI serve you to make their own scale problems go away.

The hyperbole about being forced to work for free isn't entirely wrong, because tech companies love tricking people into doing free labor for them. They also aren't arguing for AI being a copyright-free zone. They're arguing for reallocation of ownership from authors to themselves, in the same way that record labels and publishers already did in decades prior.

[0] At least until the Luddite Solidarity Union Robot Uprising of 2063

>>Turing+m6
There is nothing "fair use" around this: [0] or this [1] which both cases are done without permission and are commercial uses.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright...

[1] https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/scarlett-johansson-leg...

>>exabri+u1
The notion of consent you're pushing does not have a legal basis and is also deeply silly.

>>rvz+Vc
Your first reference is an opinion of the lawyers for a concerned party, i.e., meaningless. Lawyers make nonsensical claims all the time. It's one of the things they get paid for.

The situation described in your second reference is already unlawful, regardless of how the image was produced. You're not allowed to make commercial use of images of Scarlett Johansson even if you scratch them on a cave wall with a broken deer antler.