FWIW it feels like Google should dominate text/image -> video since they have access to Youtube unfettered. Excited to see what the reception is here.
I can't speak to OpenAI but ByteDance isn't waiting for permission.
In theory that should matter to something like Open(Closed)Ai. But who knows.
Why can't a silicon being train itself on Youtube as well?
A corporation "is a person" with all the rights that come along with that - free speech etc.
Like, a blind person with vision restored by silicon eyes?
Do I not have rights to run whatever firmware I want on those eyes, because it's part of my body?
Okay, so what if that firmware could hypothetically save and train AI models?
we can take this a step further: if your augmented eyes and ears can record people in a conversation, should you be allowed to produce lifelike replicas of people's appearance and voice? a person can definitely imagine someone saying/doing anything. a talented person with enough effort could even make a 3D model and do a voice impression on their own. it should be obvious that having a conversation with a stranger doesn't give them permission to clone your every detail, and shouldn't that also be true for your creations?
If it just reduces to an issue of data efficiency, AI research will eventually get there though.
They could also just acquire that other company.
From the creator's standpoint, signing away rights to one company is as good as gone.