or they could open it all up for everybody and stop protecting the rights of death people (authors dead less then 70 years ago)
then again, that will make the publishers starve... but why pretend publishing corporations need food?
In my utopia, the end results are models containing the sum total of human output, available to everyone.
What I think is unconscionable is training the models on public works and then retaining them exclusively for private use.
Comment generated with gpt-neox prompt: Comment about AI and data collection and generation and its pitfalls, expressing concern, emphasis on professions, emphasis on automation, written by Stephen King, creative writing, award winning, trending on reddit, trending on hacker news, written by Greg Rutkowski, written by Zola, written by Voltaire, written by authpor, written by moyix.
(Just kidding, it wasn't AI generated but you see my point.)
This has been the case ever since people started putting their art on the Internet publicly. The only difference is that now it's algorithms creating the derivatives, not people.
Acting like it's a bad thing is just ludditery.
I remember when I started working on generative models in 2015, you could barely generate a picture of a blurry 40x40 pixels face. Two years later 1024x1024 almost indistinguishable from reality. Now every week we have a new revolutionary application coming out.
Society needs to change the laws regarding the preservation of value of intellectual labor, as has long been suggested.
Acting like the law doesn’t matter is a bad thing, if we are making value judgements.
>the generative AI system censors any output containing a category of error
I can see the ruleset now…
"This picture of a woman is revealing hair, so it must be censored because it is objectionable to some people and we must respect all people whose beliefs are guided in a sanctioned way."
"This picture shows unadulterated fun, which must be censored because…"
etc.
etc.
I tried to be as general as possible.
The training data for a self-censorship neural network could be as robust as any given society would like.
An algorithm based on self-censorship of generated output wouldn’t require censorship within the training data for the generative neural network.
I can imagine some other advantages to that approach.
Disney have won cases in court were some artist has drawn their own version of Mickey Mouse, similarly try writing a story about some kids in a wizard school and you need to be extremely careful not to violate (or at least get taken to court) for Harry Potters copyright.
I'm pretty certain image production models have produced some images which would very likely to be judged to violate copyright (a much less strong statement).
Today, clothing is cheap and plentiful, along with bedding, curtains, towels and other cloth materials. Clothing would be outrageously expensive if everything were still hand spun, hand loomed, hand cut, hand sewn, and hand screened.
If the human computers[1] that predated the rise of the machine computer had done the same and won, it would have certainly been a boon for them at the time as well, but to the loss of all information technology developed hence.
The lack of a social safety net lent desperation to the luddites. Had they not faced imminent ruin and starvation as the machines eclipsed their occupation, they may not have had need to rebel against the newly emerging textiles mechanization.
AI may eventually replace traditional artists in many situations. Surely with simple images today, we can expect video examples in the future, and interactive AI generated simulations some time after that.
Do we smash the data centers now to save the artists' livelihoods and thereby avoid a future where anyone that wants can talk a computer through creating entire interactive fictional worlds via the synthesis of AI generation with feedback from their imagination?
[1] referring here to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)
Yes, the sooner, the better.
I write a play, and I can license theater companies to be able to perform it. Therefor better writers are attracted to the industry (instead of to say Ad Copywriting) and because of a higher level product, the industry thrives.
I can write a passion play that the local theater will perform. I will not generate enough income to live from my product. I will not generate income from licensing my production because there is no copyright and my scripts would just get stolen/distributed freely. The industry has less quality productions. The majority of productions have no reputation of quality.
I see more of a difference than that.
I really don't care if a person makes a meme out of one of my Flickr photos I've shared publicly.
I'm much more grumpy at the idea that Facebook/Google/Microsoft using my Flickr photos and "giving away the AI automemes" as a way to further lock people into their walled gardens of surveillance capitalism.
(Not enough that I actually care enough to do anything about it. I have my Flickr account set to default to CC BY 2.0 for uploads, and I try reasonably hard to remember to lock that down to All Rights Reserved is I'm uploading pics of family or friends. But I don't lose sleep over any of it. I do sometime come across this pic of mine, which took on a life of it's own and is all over the internet, at least in coffee-related places, and wistfully wonder if I could have gotten more credit for it... https://flic.kr/p/sVHP9 )
we need money because food is for sale, because most of us do not own where we live hence we are forced (a priori) to come up with a whole lot of money every month or else you're out in the streets.
Not only that but being able to dedicate 8 to 10 hours a day to your craft for 40 years bring it to a level that you can't reach with casual practice.
I consider France one of the best examples of capitalism https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1683661/paris-protests-...
The concept of a UBI (universal basic income) isn’t inherently in conflict with capitalism. I believe that it is actually in coherence with the idea of Universal Human Rights, as defined by the UN in the 1940s.
Perhaps that would be the culmination of anything good about capitalism.
IMHO, the realistic option is a thick enough safety net for those who is going through a rough spot, for the disabled, etc, via both taxes and charity. But the vast majority will have to work, in one way or another, until machines completely take over, like in the Culture books by Ian Banks.
In the United States, for example, there are so many different welfare programs, might there not be a way to consolidate under a new set of rules?
Similarly, with regards to charity, has any economist modeled a hypothetical of transiting charity into voluntary taxes for welfare?
the 'market economy' (capitalism) is good at some things, but terrible at others. we need to stop collectively using this social-technology (a kind of market super optimizer) in the wrong places.
Even in communist countries you find competition for housing as a result of the intrinsic value of location.
Full-fledged UBI that provides decent living would require highly progressive taxes with the top bracket being in the ballpark of 70%. We could deal that down quite a bit if we start taxing capital gains properly, but even without that, it's neither impossible nor unprecedented.