So my mid journey creation is not mine. It's just belongs to everyone? And yet corporations can leverage these large language models that basically use the creations of people and charge me a subscription for the privilege? I guess I'm having trouble understanding what the future of copyright and plagiarism looks like given how far fair use is pushed. It makes you think differently about creativity and imitation and how sophisticated deep fakes are going to become? We will soon have LLMs able to use a variety of other AI tools.
The copyright decision is likely just to going to result in people indicating they didn't us AI to create their product. It's going to be a cat and mouse game at scale where only high profile cases will actually get the review needed to tell the difference. I think there will be room for branding of products to either be AI-generated or "all natural".
“However, any good lawyer will tell you the important part of their jobs isn't in what's the same, but what is different - even if only 5% is different.”
The same will be true in situations where a document in one language is translated to another, or where there is a live translation that is being carried out by AI. That is why, probably, any smart negotiator who needs a translator will have a trusted human translator standing nearby, ready to say, “Um, sir, ChatGPT messed that up, as that was Xiang dialect, not Beijing dialect.”
Our first mistake was to “trust” in the transference of our ‘public’ utility telecommunication networks critical connectivity, e.g. ownership of the outside plant physical INFRASTRUCTURE (telecommunications/broadband networks used as the on and off ramps accessing these CDNs, platforms and services - essentially most of today’s Internet and even critical public safety and national security traffic thereby deregulating most any means to a decentralized leveraging of discussion).
I propose we start this discussion using what critical thinking we have remaining in the return to the pre-1996 telecommunication deregulation act era where ownership of our outside plant telecommunication lines was a decentralized and still federated infrastructure as still exemplified and in practice with our highways, airways and waterways models. While not a solution in itself, it would afford us leverage in this process of determining choice or levels of AI vendor participation or non-participation in a more democratic manner, rather than the arbitrary, and often scandalous behavior that’s resulted since the 90’s. https://youtu.be/mGzDpY6ZTnk
A relevant story here... the US Copyright Office denied a submission indicating the output from an AI product does not constitute "human authorship".... even if all the potential input data was from a human. 1) Can you profit from others' work on the input side? 2) Can you say the work is yours because you "designed" the prompts to the model? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-copyright-office-withdraws-copyright-for-ai-generated-comic-artwork/?utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=email&utm_placement=newsletter
So my mid journey creation is not mine. It's just belongs to everyone? And yet corporations can leverage these large language models that basically use the creations of people and charge me a subscription for the privilege? I guess I'm having trouble understanding what the future of copyright and plagiarism looks like given how far fair use is pushed. It makes you think differently about creativity and imitation and how sophisticated deep fakes are going to become? We will soon have LLMs able to use a variety of other AI tools.
The copyright decision is likely just to going to result in people indicating they didn't us AI to create their product. It's going to be a cat and mouse game at scale where only high profile cases will actually get the review needed to tell the difference. I think there will be room for branding of products to either be AI-generated or "all natural".
Very informative. I especially love the predictions/projections as I can definitely foresee them.
“However, any good lawyer will tell you the important part of their jobs isn't in what's the same, but what is different - even if only 5% is different.”
The same will be true in situations where a document in one language is translated to another, or where there is a live translation that is being carried out by AI. That is why, probably, any smart negotiator who needs a translator will have a trusted human translator standing nearby, ready to say, “Um, sir, ChatGPT messed that up, as that was Xiang dialect, not Beijing dialect.”
Our first mistake was to “trust” in the transference of our ‘public’ utility telecommunication networks critical connectivity, e.g. ownership of the outside plant physical INFRASTRUCTURE (telecommunications/broadband networks used as the on and off ramps accessing these CDNs, platforms and services - essentially most of today’s Internet and even critical public safety and national security traffic thereby deregulating most any means to a decentralized leveraging of discussion).
I propose we start this discussion using what critical thinking we have remaining in the return to the pre-1996 telecommunication deregulation act era where ownership of our outside plant telecommunication lines was a decentralized and still federated infrastructure as still exemplified and in practice with our highways, airways and waterways models. While not a solution in itself, it would afford us leverage in this process of determining choice or levels of AI vendor participation or non-participation in a more democratic manner, rather than the arbitrary, and often scandalous behavior that’s resulted since the 90’s. https://youtu.be/mGzDpY6ZTnk