People Twitter

The shitty chat bots do need high quality data. This is much better than scraping off reddit, since a glorified auto-complete cannot know that eating rocks is bad for you. You can't retroactively complain after having signed away your rights to something. But you can change things moving forward. If you are incorruptible and don't care about money, start an organization with those values and convince the researchers to join you. Good luck (seriously, I hope you succeed).

Reminds me of the song "Feed the Machine" by Poor Man's Poison:

https://youtu.be/BlnVP2_dIb4?si=t6CdslRzb7USrH1j

Daily reminder that copyright isn’t the only conceivable weapon we can wield against AI.

Anticompetitive business practices, labor law, privacy, likeness rights. There are plenty of angles to attack from.

Most importantly, we need strong unions. However we model AI regulation, we will still want some ability to grant training rights. But it can’t be a boilerplate part of an employment/contracting agreement. That’s the kind of thing unions are made to handle.

"it's in the public interest" so all these articles will be freely available to the public. Right?... Riiight?!

See - this is why I don't give a shit about copyright.

It doesn't protect creators - it just enriches rent-seeking corporate fuckwads.

Oh look! Socialism for the rich!

"How is nobody talking about this?"

The average person has the science literacy at or below a fifth grader, and places academic study precedence below that of a story about a wish granting sky fairy who made earth in his basement as a hobby with zero lighting (obviously, as light hadn't been invented at that point).

“it is in the public interest for these emerging technologies to be trained on high-quality, reliable information.”

Oh, well if you say so. Oh wait, no one has a say anyway because corporations ru(i)n everything.

It's for reasons like these that I think its foolhardy to be advocating for a strengthening of copyrights when it comes to AI.

The windfall will not be shared, the data is already out of the hands of the individuals and any "pro-artist" law will only help kill the competition for companies like Google, Sony Music, Disney and Microsoft.

These companies will happily pay huge sums to lock anyone out of the scene. They are already splitting it between each other, they are anticipating a green light for regulatory capture.

I think this happens because the publisher owns the content and owes royalties to authors under certain conditions (which may or may not be met in this situation). The reason I think this is I had a PhD buddy who published a book (nonfiction history) and we all got a hardy chuckle at the part of the contract that said the publisher got the theme park rights. But what if there were other provisions in the contract that would allow for this situation without compensating the authors? Anywho, this is a good reminder to read the fine print on anything you sign.

How does cutting peer review time help get more content? The throughput will still be the same regardless of if it takes 15 days or a year to complete a peer review

Thanks for sharing this with us!

Terms of Service and contracts...

It reminded me of this:

"Disney says man can't sue over wife's death because he agreed to Disney+ terms of service" [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-sue-wifes-death-agreed-disney-terms-service-rcna166594]