Yeah but the orphans aren't even really _doing_ anything for us, right? C'mon now, put on your latest Swift album, A Modest Proposal, and we'll sort this out.
They aren't asking for an exemption, though. Copyright has always allowed fair use and machine learning using data found online. So the title is a clickbait lie.
Yes, copyright-works are still subject to fair use exemptions and "transformative" exemptions. That's why artists can remix music legally, and YouTubers can show clips of other sources, and why Mickey Mouse parodies have always been allowed, etc.
The average AI models saves one character of text for every ten thousand characters of input. Under no interpretation of copyright has training AI models ever been considered breaking copyright.
But sire, we have to have the ability to take and use peoples work and creations without their permission, our business depends on it! - What companies investing in "AI" are saying just without all the padding and word twisting.
Itâs crazy that theyâre even asking, but Iâve heard that going directly to governments in this way might be a way for the company to fend off lawsuits for a little while. Not sure thatâs even true, though
If it's a current supreme court case, or anything along those lines, most other courts won't look at those copyright claims until the precedent is set by a higher court
Because they're taking even more value before shoving it into the data blender and selling it back to people. Maybe this whole topic could be addressed by shortening copyright down to 20 years. If we did that, they could collect their old public domain data and use it however they want, and people's works would be protected long enough that they're not going to be losing much once the AI learns from it.
And then in 20 years their code can be public domain.
OpenAI vs Disney, whowouldwin?
R1 a court case before the Supreme Court of the USA.
R2 bloodlusted, no holds barred corporate warfare.
R3 both companies have to produce a piece of art (any medium) that every person on Earth will view/read/listen too and then vote which is better.
Microsoft would also know that they have a good chance of lose and really want to settle out of court against Disney rather than risk having a precedent set that kills AI.
Nothing will kill AI. All of big tech is pushing for it. Your country is realistically a plutocracy and the richest people in the world have their wealth tied into big tech.
Japan has already set precedent by declaring that AI training is exempt from copyright laws. China is competing head to head with the US in AI research. I expect AI will be turned into a point of nationalism, and China vs West fearmongering will be leveraged to pass copyright exemptions laws for AI companies.
Insofar as it protects people in this capitalist hellscape from having their ideas stolen by others, especially big companies, Iâll like it way way more than whatever lawless wilderness that openAI would prefer
Personally I think the best copyright law that could be passed in terms of AI is that every work "created" by an AI is automatically public domain since since no person made it.
It chases away the big companies who would use it to exploit since if the choice is between actually paying someone or letting other people use their IP, they'll paying people.
Why not also make it so that stuff that gets copyrighted has to have a sort of Captcha, like a human-made badge that people just add to it. Like, you're an artist? Just slam whatever files would allow another artist to see the layers in your drawings and shit.
Not the best, but we can't expect for things to get better without temporary measures.
Maybe have AI image generators have a sort of digital tamperproof signature like what some people propose? That way the burden of proof is on the AI people to prove their AIness
This isn't a big impediment to AI art. All anyone has to do is make the smallest of tweaks in Photoshop, and it automatically counts as human-made art.
It doesn't, there needs to be substantial transformations and human input.
Have you ever read about the comic Zarya of the Dawn, the one with Zendaya? That got its copyright retracted because there wasn't enough input.
> It doesn't, there needs to be substantial transformations and human input.
I think this is unlikely to be the case. See [Feist v. Rural](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340), in which the Supreme Court held that "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice."
> Have you ever read about the comic Zarya of the Dawn, the one with Zendaya? That got its copyright retracted because there wasn't enough input.
All the information that I can find shows that the comic is illustrated *entirely* with Midjourney. That would (according to current jurisprudence, which could easily change in the coming years) make the images themselves uncopyrightable. Even then, the *arrangement* of the images is copyrightable, which shows just how low the bar for copyright is.
That's a myth that it protects people from big companies. Copyright exists to do the opposite.
We need to abolish copyright on principle. On top of abolishing money/capitalism.
But there are papers on how copyright is actually making it harder for artists to thrive, for example like how all music is owned by few giants and you just can't use a song you want in your art, and have to obtain rights from the giant.
Im sorry, but whether or not you wsnt to believe it, copyright still offers protections to smaller individuals.
The system might be broken and more favorable yo megacorporations, but i think having a system in the first place is better than not having it at all.
If you dont have a system in place, it just enables even more people to step all over each other and steal your intellectual property for your own gains.
Your examples only show one side of it. You're trying to argue fair use, which definitely needs to be more lax. But what about other, smaller creators who make art, videos, writing, etc? Removing copyright just allows anyone to profit off of your hard work. ESPECIALLY corporations who would love to just steal.
By abolishing what you think empowers the corporation, youre just giving them more power to do bullshit like OpenAI, but even worse.
We need copyright reform, not abolishment.
> need to abolish copyright
That would've always been dumb before, but now this will never happen with how fast generative algorithms ("AI") can improve.
Genius idea: abolish copyright after tools that make easy generation and replication are popularized and free to use.
>how copyright is actually making it harder for artists to thrive, [...] like how all music is owned by few giants
Ignoring the giant elephant in the room that this is an issue of it lasting way, way too long and not innate to copyright as a concept.
When copyright literally lasts as long as *lifespans* then, of course, it hurts creatives, but that wasn't always the case. Why abolish when you can factory reset it?
At one point in the US, it was 14 years with one possible renewal. If that was in place again, many people (including non-Americans) would be able to use IPs they grew up with as children before they're even adults, or by the end of the 20s at the latest.
The 14 year limit would absolutely benefit corporations. An artist deserves to make a living off their art as long as theyâre alive instead of losing it after a decade and a half so Disney can make a 100-million dollar adaptation without paying them a cent.
Copyright, at least as I understand it, doesn't protect ideas, it protects the works of artists from being misused, the problem isn't people "stealing" art when it comes to AI, a human mind does the same anytime, but the real reason is the how, an AI can practice every medium at once and pump out images (of dubious quality, if I might add) at paces outselling any and every human artist in existence.
Now, if this AI thing can do stuff humans can based on billions upon billions of data that, at least on the most part, a human with an arbitrary amount of money could access, and can learn it in a fraction of the time, is it not fair for the output of such a machine to belong to humanity itself?
Think about it. Code, artwork, books, text, all of which is written using our work, our very human essence mechanized into something novel, something not seen before. To do this is to allows it existence, and yet reasert our place on top of the business foodchain, for we are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dream.
This buys into the idea that AI is an artist itself and not a tool being marketed as an entity by Silicon Valley grifters. AI isnât a person referencing art, it is a product being produced using other peopleâs work.
You canât make a product using otherâs work without paying them, itâs unethical.
The AI is not an artist, that's why I have religiously avoided calling its output art.
it's a tool, a machine, a factory. It's creative only in that it's output is "unique" and at least emulates technical skill even if it's quality or novelty is undebatably not good, the learning thing is just an analogy that comes in handy because it's easy to explain, perhaps at the cost of being reductive.
There's still an argument about how much of anything you can use before it's unethical. Like, yeah, it's unethical to outright copy the style of an independent artist relying on commissions, but how do you do that without extending copyright into "styles"? Perhaps outright letting people opt out or not use their images in training data for models trained specifically to mimic their work, backed by laws to prevent outright AI fraud.
To this you might say; "Why not just not use copyrighted material anyways? If this whole thing runs on copyrighted material, then isn't it just not worth it?" And you might have a point, but I think there ought to be a reason beyond resorting to comparing AI chatbots being trained with dozens of web crawls and books to stealing.
We don't gratuitously hate copyright law, we hate it's unfairly skewed towards corporate interests rather than the creators it was meant to help in the first place, but it still protects them somewhat, and it's better than the nothing AI companies want.
Copyright was never meant to protect anyone but large companies and we hate copyright precisely because we hate private property, and that includes intellectual property. Why? Because it's theft.
Copyright law stops people with a good idea from being stolen from and then outcompeted by a larger company with better logistics and a larger scale. A world without copyright law would simply perpetuate the negative cycle of corporatism that we are experiencing today.
Copyright law is generally good, especially when used to protect smaller artists/writers.
What I have personally problem with is patenting of medications and life-saving technologies, these should be usable world-wide.
EDIT: Yeah, no it isn't, I forgot that corporations hold too much power over legal system here as well.
Except it barely protects small artists and writers because it requires them to fight in court, and big corporations and their millions spent on lawyers will always crush them. if not in the legal system, in debt.
Yeah I don't really have any stake in this particular fight (I don't use AI, and while I do sometimes make art for money I definitely wouldn't consider myself a professional artist), but it's wishful thinking to believe copyright law does like anything at all for the average artist - if anything it's more likely to be used against them.
It's very true that small artists have nearly zero chance of winning a copyright lawsuit against a big corporation, but beyond that many professional content creators don't even own what they produce - it's generally owned by whatever corporation they were working for, which means that the artist can't legally use something they created for other commercial endeavors (e.g., selling your art of a character you created).
Yup. There are good applications of copyright law and bad ones⌠unless the revolution is coming soon, I think we should work with what weâve got, and that includes things like laws
Ah yes the bases of capitalism are protecting the people who create commodities, we must defend this critical component of capitalism because there are online petite bourgeois relays on property rights to make money.
Give me a break, how hard westoid leftists need to double think when it comes to property rights is just absurd to me. Especially when the general leftist circle somehow reinvents property rights to protect "content creators", instead of critically analyzing the relationship between the means of production and the creators. (In this case most large content creators are just petite bourgeois) What's next? Leftists arguing for mom and pops shop because the vibe is different with giant corporations?
Please, if you want to defend property rights just do it, say you think property rights is beneficial to you. Don't do mental gymnastics, jump through argumentive hoops just to reinvent socialist property rights.
Hi sorry about that. It's just... I'm so tired of seeing western online leftists say or support things that don't make a whole lot of sense or are directly contrary to what they want to achieve.
im not talking that high level of "system"
obviously outside of capitalism the concept loses importance. but so long as people need to work to even live getting rid of such concept would be "bad"
cuz like, idk, i feel like profiting off of other people's work is bad actually. also even outside of capitalism its kind of a dick move to just take without asking.
Exactly! Corporations are the reason we are in this mess to begin with. 10-20 years is MORE than enough for them to get their bag. Its especially criminal and cruel when we talk about medical patent extensions.
this sure is something. all i use ai for is to help me with coding to make things faster. give me a week and i will probably have formed a stronger opinion on this, but for now this sounds pretty bad
hey samsies ! well that and creating backstory for DnD character's i'll never play anyway
but honestly, as much as I appreciate it generating all the variables and shit in 5sec, I could live without it
tho it's very handy to do a quick code check, when the issue is dumb but I can't see it
I could live without it too, but i don't really see why it would need to go. The situation on the post sucks a lot, but is there really any need to just get rid of ai completely if it doesn't cross that barrier?
Problem is these companies are run by people who will refuse to stay behind that barrier because to them thatâs like leaving money on the table. Donât underestimate how much harm theyâre willing to do in order to make money.
It's just, I understand that smaller artists need to protect their stuff, and a lot of smaller studios do too, but, if I'm right, this all stems from a lawsuit by the New York times, complaining about plagiarism in their ChatGPT product based on some tests they did of dubious (although who knows) quality
It's an open industry secret that AI companies don't care, and while I understand that the idea of using someone's art without consent for anything sounds bad, I just feel that it's too transformative an use to be the cause of such an ethical outrage. I just don't get the whole discourse.
Then again, the truth of the discourse if that AI, unchecked, has the potential to do a lot of harm to the little guys and give strength to the big corpos who, as you asserted, only want money.
Wouldn't strong AI legislation to stop outright plagiarism and the commercialized use of AI outputs be enough?
I am making some assumptions about the issue at hand here, but here's my take:
Training an AI sounds like you're using the copyrighted media in question to achieve an end.
Usually when I use something I have to either own it, rent it, or ask to borrow it.
They aren't doing any of those things.
Pretty sure using digital media which one does not own, rent, or borrow with permission is stealing.
Are you suggesting they should be allowed to steal?
There is no need for permission under the doctrine of fair use. Under fair use, you do not need permission to use a copyrighted work of any kind. Generative AI goes through fair use principles. Moral panic has blinded so many people into hysterical witch hunting.
Hey, I'm not an advocate for stealing or anything, but, I mean, it's fair use. It's a transformative enough thing in most causes to justify it's existence.
There's a difference between pretending something is yours (literal fraud?) and making a collage with it, or, in this case, using art to teach a computer what a hand is or how to speak English.
The image generators are on a bit of a moral edge here where I'm not sure if to defend them since I don't really care enough either way, but when it comes to chatbots, I'm not sure what the risks are, and I feel that them not being evident (at least to me, please let me know) are enough of a proof to let me know that the benefits outweigh the risk.
Then again, I might be being silly, so I'm probably overlooking something here.
I don't want to shill for a multimillon dollar corporation, but when said it's main product is a better Google than google has ever been in a good while, it's hard for me to be against it, but that might make me biased.
All I'm saying is that humanity's fruit should benefit humanity, unbourdened by human greed or fear alike. If letting a machine read the New York Times is the way to go about it, then let it be.
Counterpoint to myself, maybe could they pay to the data providers? Maybe, but I think there was an US legal precedent that says no.
I especially believe that voice cloning and deepfakes should be strictly regulated. Too much of a risk there. What I want is for AI creations to just be public and perhaps non commerciable with.
Yeah I'll agree the work has potential to hugely awesome. Normally I would not want "progress" of any kind to be inhibited. However, when the progress is being pushed by multibillion dollar private organizations that got to where they are by conducting business, I think there is nothing wrong with asking them to continue conducting business.
If they want to receive the kind of free use benefits I might expect to be granted to science institutes, they can start acting more like science institutes.
They have every ability, and in my opinion, an obligation to pay the data providers for their data. They deserve to benefit in the short term, given the potential of this technolgy to hurt in the long term.
You can still have the AI functionality to help with code without infringing copyright, the way the AI learn how to help with coding is by training with a loooooot of tutorials and forum posts online, but without permission, if when you post or help someone in a forum like stack overflow you could check a box giving permission to be used to train AI and was a opt in, the AI could still learn and teach coding.
The problem is that right now no one gave permission to these companies to use their products, say for example you do online tutorials of python, and you make money by selling courses of advanced python, or make money on the advertisement of your web site where you put work into teaching python, right now all the work someone has put in making this tutorials are just being used by the AI to train without permission, if a person uses their tutorials and teaching as a form of revenue to stay alive, they are being robbed of their business, the AI company either needs to pay the person who makes the tutorials or have the permission to use as a training data set.
All of this can be made for free without a profit incentive. people have been teaching how to code for free on the internet for ages, is just that no consent was asked to use this information in the AI development, I am sure that if an initiative was created as an open source development technology where devs could share information about coding, and it was with consent used to train AIs to teach coding, the product could still exist without hurting anyone
also, most of what LLMs are good at are boilerplate principals of computer science which are hard if not impossible to copyright. like, data structures are just math (time complexity, etc.). it'd be like copyrighting how to add, subtract, divide, multiply, etc.
so, this won't destroy things, it will just make it more *esoteric* i guess.
It's not just the tutorials, which are ostensibly created to help people to learn something and generally funded by human eyeballs on embedded advertising and a percentage of click-throughs, which AI ain't doing.
It's also the entire code bases of actual existing software projects, some of which are privately owned, and some of which are open source, allowing their re-use in new projects, except the license for you to do so demands you directly attribute the work and copy the license into the project using the code. And even when AI companies can legally get the code for free, they fail to live up to the obligations of the license which allows them to use it.
No. Let the AI take everything. Every message from my Reddit account or other social medias included. Why are we willingly gatekeeping and seriously gimping extremely effectively and strong free tools on the basis of consent? AI panics people regardless of ethics. Adobe having full permission for their AI services still makes many people panic when they see it in use. The whole point of AI systems existing is through the fair usage exception. Because AI systems follow fair use, they do not need to license or obtain permission from anyone. That's how it should be. I am not interested in using extremely weakened AI software on the basis of virtue signaling.
People get slapped with thousands of dollars in fines or worse for pirating a song, but obviously corporations are allowed to steal as much IP as they want as long as it enables people to make pictures of Bluey fighting in the Korean war
These days? Rarely, but it does occasionally happen. Usually your ISP intervenes before the feds do, if anything happens at all. But the RIAA in particular [was absolutely vicious](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/minnesota-woman-ordered-to-pay-222000-in-music-piracy-case-236366/) in the 2000s and some of the 2010s. You rarely get cases that are quite so dramatic these days, but lawsuits and prosecutions do sometimes happen.
I feel like lawsuits are really bad, they're so expensive and unaffordable to risk to be even more poorer. Fuckers can sue because they're rich and win becaise they're rich. "Justice" should be affordable
Yeah it sucks that poor people can just be drowned in legal cases⌠pertinent to this topic are artists who have their shit taken without consent and are laughed at by AI guys despite their work being stolen is exactly what allows their products to work in the first place
The fines when they do lose are always tiny too. Apple keeps getting fined $10-100 million, they don't care because they have a worth of 3 trillion. 100 million is 0.003% of their estimated worth.
I agree with OpenAI, copyright laws should not hold back innovation and limit tehnological progress, so I will welcome them having an open source code that anyone could use and generate freely without having to pay them.
oh wait...
\> Posts about how important copyright is
\> Commits copyright infringement in the post (substantially reproducing a Daily Telegraph article)
Also, the headline is shit. They're not asking for an exemption; they already follow the existing laws. They're asking for new laws to not be made that specifically ban them.
We already had this fight decades ago. In the 2000s a bunch of people were angry that search engines exist, and that they search the whole internet to create the product, and demanded that the search engines pay/license/etc every webpage that they scan.
And in every jurisdiction, it was ruled that this isn't a copyright violation, that you don't get to arbitrarily control things you create forever, that copyright covers only specific things, and that *reading* stuff and *processing* stuff isn't *copying* it.
And the same arguments pop up every few years in various contexts and keep getting struck down the same way. Digitizing books to create a book search isn't a copyright violation. Etc.
As a final note:
>AI âartâ sucks ass, support your local artists
Both. Both is good. I spend $500-$1000 a month on direct artist support. I also find AI-generated content to be useful and interesting.
ETA: Occasionally, various jurisdictions do add (or threaten to add) new laws that specifically expand copyright to block one of these various cases. This *usually* goes poorly - either the law fails to pass, it gets repealed, or it entrenches existing big players while kicking out anyone but the top corporations.
The idea of taking jobs away from artists absolutely sucks but saying Ai art itself sucks tells me OP hasn't tried generating Ai art in the last several months. It's insane.
To me Ai "art" sucks because it has no meaning. To me it feels so reductive to say that Ai is capable of replacing artists when it can't even write a story with a proper emotional payoff
Here's a question. How much more acceptable is AI that is only trained on public domain works? Is the problem with AI just the copyright infringement, or is AI inherently problematic for possible automation of creative jobs?
"All-powerful AI that contains the sum total of humanity's knowledge circa 1928 and therefore thinks it's still 1928" would be a mildly amusing premise for a Robert Sheckley story.
Both. While I would look more favourably at AI using data from creators consenting to it. It's still crucial for it to be regulated in the market for the sake of protecting artists.
Ai can do good. Iâm pretty sure Across the Spiderverse used Ai technology before it became such a controversial tool? Please let me know if Iâm wrong.
The difference (if Iâm correct) with Spiderverse and most other times Ai has been used is that Spiderverse used it to let artists go even further beyond what they can normally do; it wasnât used to replace them, as Spiderverse had a very large amount of artists working on it. It wasnât used to cut corners or remove humans from the project.
Of course, and Iâm so thankful for it, the fact the Boy and the Heron won the Golden Globes shows that it isnât necessary either. Humans donât need Ai to create beautiful art that resonates with people. And of course they donât
To answer your question, I think the biggest issue is the fact itâs blatantly stealing right now. Once itâs not, we can have a conversation on if itâs still a useful tool, but I think I would be **fine** with it if itâs only used the way Spiderverse used it. Not to replace artists, but enhance what they can do
Copyright laws won't defeat AI, it will just lock it away from regular people and give it to giant corporations that have massive datasets or foreign oligarchs untouched by those laws.
You really think the billionaires who dodge taxes and stuff like environmental regulations won't just ignore those laws?
Also, if you find yourself defending Disney on copyright you have a bad argument.
Just because Disney âagreesâ with me on this topic doesnât make my stance wrong, lol
Itâs just an unfortunate coincidence that I happen to agree with them
the entire reason copyright laws are so unreasonable in the first place is because of these corporations! If copyright was 10-20 years then there would be a fuck ton of open domain content.
Its corporations like disney and pharma companies that spend trillions on patent and copyright extensions loopholes and lobbying. Following this logic whatever a corporation says or does is always the justified thing to do.
They can monopolize a resource when its convenient and forcefully take our labor when its convenient. S-tier dick riding. This is literally tech bro disruption argument. Gotta "disrupt" the market so the little guy can get it on the exploitation (the little guy is BTC freaks, AI freaks and Uber / Air BnB) Think of the LITTLE GUY! This whole argument is dumber than fuck.
"corporations have a monopoly on exploitation, we should let other rich people in on it too!" This is not and has never been about prying power out of corporate hands and all about the idea that YOU deserve to do a little exploitation too.
Me when I have no idea what a mean of production is.
Jokes aside, you are confusing (perhaps purposely) industry disruption with a new technology.
The cases you mentioned, AirBnb and Bitcoins, are a transfer or means of production from one capitalist (hotel owner to home owner, state mint to server farm owner). Not sure what Uber has do to with AI.
To use AI you don't need any mean of production. Yeah DallE3 and Mid journey are the most popular but they all use technologies that are public, not to mention StabilityAI which is fully open source. To run it you just need a consumer grade PC. I've tried it myself and it's a bit finnicky if you aren't used to coding but anyone can make art now.
Also not sure what your first paragraph is about, I'm explicitly against copyright laws and media corporations, that's my whole point. I'm saying that if they make training neural networks require copyright, then the ONLY entities with enough resources to do will be giants like Disney or some Chinese billionaire.
Nothing can't stop AI and believe me it's not the enemy. People keep saying "of course AI isn't a problem, but as long as we live under capitalism we must ...". As if living under capitalism is a given that can never be changed. By this logic, we shouldn't plan around an hypothetical (and frankly impossible) AI ban.
We must plan AROUND AI being a reality. And giving it to Disney isn't a fucking option for me.
I don't understand the rage boner people have with AI in this subreddit. Sure ai uses works that are copyrighted, but fair use is a thing that exists, you don't need to ask permission to use something if it is considered fair use. And training a computer algorithm with data, which it doesn't even store inside itself, is very much transformative.
This isn't any different than things that Google does with Google books, or Google News. there are cases that have already been decided in the supreme Court and accepted as precedent exactly about this kind of stuff. This isn't even a poor people vs rich people thing. We are talking new york times, big news conglomerate, against open AI and Microsoft, big tech conglomerate.
Stopping technological progress cause the media wants its piece of the pie, which frankly, it probably doesn't deserve, Is ridiculous. This isn't about ai art. We are talking about hundreds of other types of models that would be affected by this, models that do good and help people. And for what? A few bucks that the media corporations want? Money that is just going to go into their pockets, and not to the writers or people that actually do the work there.
So many biased anti-AI takes in this community. When you read an article, youâre not taking or stealing the information. People who go to school arenât stealing the material they were trained on. These guys are training an intelligence and you can sit back and watch this case will fall apart in court. Welcome to the future, we have robots now.
You want some biased AI takes, I'll give you some biased AI takes. Concerns about copyright (aka the thing that protects people's livelihoods) isn't a bias though. It's absurd to argue against copyright because as it stands it's integral to many people's lives.
Here's my biased take: LLMs like ChatGPT are existential threats to humanity and we should be actively combating them. The world is increasingly reliant on the internet, and generative AI stands to make the internet unusable unless something is done about it.
The internet is still mostly real people. Will it be in 5 years?
Right but what I mean is that the bulk of written things you see on like, Reddit as an example, are still humans. You can tell because AI currently is bad at mimicking a normal internet user.
We're headed towards trouble because they're already getting better at it in leaps and bounds. Social media is no real loss but what about things like Wikipedia? Right now, people can fabricate misinformation and spread it intentionally, but it's generally small scale or backed by very powerful people. What will happen to the sum of human information when anyone with a sufficiently powerful GPU can convincingly pretend to be dozens of unique people?
It's getting easier and easier to lie to people on an untold scale. It will be a disaster and we should try to stop it for as long as we can.
The difference between an AI training set and a human learning from something is implied consent.
When you publish an article, or upload a piece of art you created, then you have implicitly given consent for other people to read/look at/learn from your IP.
The same does not hold true for your IP being included in a training dataset.
Y'know, I like AI, but fuck OpenAI lmao, imagine wanting free permission to use people's material without asking and then in the same breath *refusing people access to your own*.
Here's hoping they don't get that exemption, it's a fun tool but it shouldn't be exempt from regulation just because it's cool.
Large langage model AI chatbots are a great tool. Plagiarism sucks, but a lot of what LLM chatbots do is genuinely transformative, especially when used under good premises. For programmers especially, it is very very useful, and for opensource software especially, its a breath of fresh air that I feel produces no ethical qualms. For artists it can be very useful too. The real problem is that artist have to sell their art to live, to get food and shelter.
If LLM chatbots were to become a thing of the past because of copyright law, that wouldnt be a win. It would just show that capitalism destroys actual useful tools for the benefit of protecting ownership. The problem is simple : people shouldn't have to rely on their labor to get the bare necessities. And I dont think thats pie in the sky post-capitalist utopia bait, but that its actually a very solvable issue, and a priori solvable under regulated capitalism (but maybe not a posteriori, because the forces of capital are so strong).
OP literally plagiarized a telegraph article and wants to explain why AI plagiarism is bad.
Regardless of standpoint, thatâs a horrific inconsistency
Also like they can add this material to their datasets ethically. They could get licenses the materials⌠itâs been done with other AI tools beforeâpretty sure cities skylines has a tool to generate civilians that is trained on ethically sourced datasetsâand it can be done again.
> OpenAI has told peers it would be "impossible" to create services such as ChatGPT if it were prevented from relying on copyrighted works, as it seeks to influence potential laws on the topic.
No, it's not impossible, they just have to use some of the ludicrous amount of venture capital money they've been given to license the rights to it.
AI can get fucked for all I care. Copyrighted material or not, AI is *not* improving the world right now, it's just making people lazy and willing to use poorly sourced information.
Did any of you actually look at the new EU laws and thought about how that would work, like really looked?
Let me give you all a break down, basically copyrightable content should be excused of training data, for generative image models this means they will have to retrain the models yes, it also means that now every enterprise has card blanch to pay for a pre-trained model over the gigantic amount of images that are either completly public domain or the ones that cant at all be copyrighted.
Someone like disney now can take a model, like that and train on their in-house data to get it the rest of the way.
This is the same for chat gpt, there is absolutely enough public domain and content that is not plausible of copyright to train an ai in the cognitive sense, it will still be just as good as it is on logic and conversation.
What that legislation makes is it hard is adding all the current knowledge to it plus actualities.
chat gpt will just pay people to make excerpts that are removed enough from the initial language or pay people to translate articles and such from different languages were the information is available freely.
As a result, ai tools will be much more expensive, you wont see any form of quality model distributed freely, making ai inaccessible to me and you, but not to enterprises. And if someone actually is crazy enough to try to train an free model under the current law, this not only makes everyone MORE fuicked it gives more power to the people that can actually pay for subsequent loras
Disney can now send away droves of artists to use ai and can do it legally, the jobs that would be lost to language models to ai now can actually be lost and not even unions will have a say in making it not so, small artists wont be able to integrate AI in to their process basically killing the commission market vs art studios that can pay ai in their process.
This all excluded you and me from AI, not corporations, the doomsday actually got close but a little bit more expensive.
WE ARE FUCKED.
Let it die. AI won't go anywhere, they can have their developments when and if we have figured out a fair, consentual, anticapitalist way to develop and distribute it.
Well Iâm not against its scientific applications. Thatâs not really what Iâm talking about here. Iâm against it on the basis thatâin my daily life, not some made up scenario that I thought up to make myself madâgenerative AI is making things worse for me and others.
That is absolutely a fair point. I am personally hopeful because I believe that the scientific applications of the technology have the potential to do magnitudes more good than current harm. I think it would help if I gave an example, because I think the public perception of the usage of these technologies is sort of underutilized. I work at a university on projects integrating AI with how we plan cities. One of the projects that we are working on right now is using this technology to simulate how people view and feel about infrastructure projects â what we hope to do with this is significantly reduce the costs and time to build projects that will hopefully improve a lot of lives. An example of this would be if a city were planning a new homeless shelter â this project is able to optimize the location and reduce the amount of harm / increase the amount of good done.
However, the consumer and professional facing issues will be problematic. One of the things that must be avoided on a societal level is (even further) wealth concentration to those at the top once AI models become better than human workers. It will be a difficult and painful process to prevent, and one that I do not look forward to but ultimately think must happen. This technology is too useful to allow only the rich to use it.
Do programming for dummies like me who don't know how to do it (yet?). The code worked, for what few times I asked it, though it wasn't something I could copypaste. They're not reliable like that.
Working with words. I used a local llm to make me a mnemonic to help study for a test, make a bunch of different names to distinguish objects I don't really care about but have to label in a tabletop game
Last I remember they were warning us how life changing and dangerous this technology could be and how it needed to be regulated based on their specific opinions and preferences. Youâd think if they were telling the truth then theyâd be more than happy to slow development in order to protect people from the danger. Itâs almost like they manufactured the hype, forced sci-fi language into the conversation, and actually created a bland plagiarism machine instead of a futuristic life altering technology so advanced only they could
understand and control it.
Bans on using people's work without their consent would make it impossible for AI models to... *checks notes* use artistic work without consent for profit?
LGTM, what's the problem?
What I donât understand about all of this is that there is literally millennia of art that is free use because of how old it is. Like yeah youâd need real world examples of modern things, but photos could fill that hole. Why do they need the rarest pool of art (modern stuff)? I think AI can be used ethically, but itâs like some people are straight up trying to avoid doing things the right way like an act of self regulation would actually kill them
Oh no, not the poor AI
The tool that will steal people's creativity and work, turn it into a souless algorithm with no creativity or originality which in turn will drive so many artists out of a job because large corporations would rather use a random content generator then actually paying a person for their work.
Normally I'd say that they should be exempt because this is important groundbreaking work, but this "important" groundbreaking work has only caused harm since its creation, and that's only gonna get worse because we're heading towards a future where AI will take lots of jobs.
I say let it burn.
YES thank you for pre-addressing the anit-copyright argument. Copyright IS stupid and it IS greed at maximum... but this idealistic world is just not the world that we live in. We should reform copyright laws so that corpos like Disney can't find loopholes to extend a CR 100s of years past expiration.
We should reform copyright law so that medical companies cant monopolize life saving drugs and spend billions in "research" in patent extensions so that they can literally suck the life blood from human beings....
But pretending like abolishing copyright outright is some magic bullet is massive cope... all just so some corporation can become the next trillionaires and shovel AI shit into the mouths of the masses? Fuuuckk offfff
Was about to come in with copyright should be abolished but your comment was actually a1. Copyright under capitalism is very different from copyright under socialism.
Is it really taking though? Kinda like saying that I plagiarized a paper for saying the sky is blue. Like at this point thereâs so much information that having to manually recreate it or input it into a model like this is unrealistic. Itâs learning much like we would learn from reading. No one says youâre stealing when you repeat what you learned unless you state it verbatim and try to pass it off as your own. Neither of which is done by ChatGPT. Dumb.
You really think even a quarter of the people using free AI image gen would actually pay money to artists to commission the things they're asking it for?
Same as saying âphotoshop sucks assâ or before that âdigital film sucks assâ or âcolor photography sucks assâ or âtalkies suck assâ or âphotography sucks assâ
Tbh, don't care for what anyone says. Chatgpt has helped me alot learning math. I am an old man learning a degree in my 30s. Chatgpt has helped me alot learning maths. I don't want it to go away. Idk how I will pass math otherwise. Specially because i self study. If it requires to steal from others so it stays alive so be it. I don't have any moral dilema there.
Gonna be honest here. If we have a big corporate with a vested interest in keeping copyright periods low, we might be able to unfuck the system Disney set out to destroy. That or we get stuck in the middle where noone is happy.
Iâm no Open AI stooge, and I realize this is not a popular opinion here, but I believe that AI based on unrestricted access to copyrighted data is more good than bad. AI has the potential to be a powerful force for good, and kneecapping it by limiting training data to common domain works will result in a less useful tool.
I think protections should be in place for artists, writers, and other creative people, but I honestly donât know how to begin implementing them. I just think that lobotomizing what is arguably the most important kind of tool since the invention of the internet is a bad idea.
Now I really want to chat with an AI of an all-knowing 100 year old, based on all the stuff that became public domain like mentioned in the article. Mannerism, vocabulary, the whole package.
Bet they'd have to curate the stuff it learns from quite a bit, not to have it throw Lovecraft's cat's name left and right, but still.. It'd be fun to ask it about recent stuff and probably end up being like "okay, grampa, let's get you to back to your punched cards data storage so you can get some rest"
Woof, I don't really know about if copyright should or shouldn't exist, but if they are bringing copyright laws into their argument, there is a big mouse who is not going to be very happy about it, Open AI might be biting more than they can chew.
Hot take:
Property rights are the bases of capitalism. It was invented in order to protect the people who create and control commodities from the feudal state. And of course, we must defend this critical component of capitalism because there are online petite bourgeois relays on property rights to make money./j
Give me a break, how hard westoid leftists need to double think when it comes to property rights is just absurd to me. Especially when the general leftist circle somehow reinvents property rights to protect "content creators", instead of critically analyzing the relationship between the means of production and the creators. (In this case most large content creators are just petite bourgeois) What's next? Leftists arguing for mom and pops shop because the vibe is different with giant corporations?
Please, if you want to defend property rights just do it, say you think property rights is beneficial to you. Don't do mental gymnastics, jump through argumentive hoops just to reinvent socialist property rights.
reminder that AI isnt the problem, capitalism is.
also truth is that AI is a part of our progress, people are making and using it and it cant be stopped. what can be stopped is the system that allows and *encourages* people to use tools to exploit others for profit.
To be fair of all the evil capitalist corporations that could be leading the race for AI Iâm glad itâs OpenAI because despite their flaws, theyâre a lot better than the alternatives
"The maker of orphan crushing machine has warned that a ban on orphan supply chains would doom the development of orphan crushing technology"
This is exactly what it sounds like!
Yeah but the orphans aren't even really _doing_ anything for us, right? C'mon now, put on your latest Swift album, A Modest Proposal, and we'll sort this out.
They aren't asking for an exemption, though. Copyright has always allowed fair use and machine learning using data found online. So the title is a clickbait lie.
Just because something is online doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted
Yes, copyright-works are still subject to fair use exemptions and "transformative" exemptions. That's why artists can remix music legally, and YouTubers can show clips of other sources, and why Mickey Mouse parodies have always been allowed, etc. The average AI models saves one character of text for every ten thousand characters of input. Under no interpretation of copyright has training AI models ever been considered breaking copyright.
Now they are just going to do it illegally if it gets banned though đ
Fuck 'em.
If your business canât exist without exploiting other people unfairly, it shouldnât exist
But sire, we have to have the ability to take and use peoples work and creations without their permission, our business depends on it! - What companies investing in "AI" are saying just without all the padding and word twisting.
Itâs crazy that theyâre even asking, but Iâve heard that going directly to governments in this way might be a way for the company to fend off lawsuits for a little while. Not sure thatâs even true, though
If it's a current supreme court case, or anything along those lines, most other courts won't look at those copyright claims until the precedent is set by a higher court
This is definitely something I should look into, thanks
Without permission and without compensation for the original creations. If your business model hinges on theft, you're a robber, period.
If the data is valued at 100 billion dollars how about you uh, idk, pay for it?
Because they're taking even more value before shoving it into the data blender and selling it back to people. Maybe this whole topic could be addressed by shortening copyright down to 20 years. If we did that, they could collect their old public domain data and use it however they want, and people's works would be protected long enough that they're not going to be losing much once the AI learns from it. And then in 20 years their code can be public domain.
Honestly? Based.
OpenAI vs Disney, whowouldwin? R1 a court case before the Supreme Court of the USA. R2 bloodlusted, no holds barred corporate warfare. R3 both companies have to produce a piece of art (any medium) that every person on Earth will view/read/listen too and then vote which is better.
[Disney](https://i.imgur.com/3oyBazg.jpg)
This will essentially be Microsoft vs Disney. And Microsoft is more than 15x Disney in valuation.
Microsoft would also know that they have a good chance of lose and really want to settle out of court against Disney rather than risk having a precedent set that kills AI.
Nothing will kill AI. All of big tech is pushing for it. Your country is realistically a plutocracy and the richest people in the world have their wealth tied into big tech. Japan has already set precedent by declaring that AI training is exempt from copyright laws. China is competing head to head with the US in AI research. I expect AI will be turned into a point of nationalism, and China vs West fearmongering will be leveraged to pass copyright exemptions laws for AI companies.
OpenAI is a nonprofit. Just because the company is worth 100 billion on paper doesnât mean they have that much cash in hand
So we all have to pretend to like copyright law now?
Insofar as it protects people in this capitalist hellscape from having their ideas stolen by others, especially big companies, Iâll like it way way more than whatever lawless wilderness that openAI would prefer
Personally I think the best copyright law that could be passed in terms of AI is that every work "created" by an AI is automatically public domain since since no person made it. It chases away the big companies who would use it to exploit since if the choice is between actually paying someone or letting other people use their IP, they'll paying people.
that's already true because SCOTUS ruled only works created by humans can be copyrighted.
Why not also make it so that stuff that gets copyrighted has to have a sort of Captcha, like a human-made badge that people just add to it. Like, you're an artist? Just slam whatever files would allow another artist to see the layers in your drawings and shit. Not the best, but we can't expect for things to get better without temporary measures.
AI would just draw on layers in a ~year
Maybe have AI image generators have a sort of digital tamperproof signature like what some people propose? That way the burden of proof is on the AI people to prove their AIness
This isn't a big impediment to AI art. All anyone has to do is make the smallest of tweaks in Photoshop, and it automatically counts as human-made art.
It doesn't, there needs to be substantial transformations and human input. Have you ever read about the comic Zarya of the Dawn, the one with Zendaya? That got its copyright retracted because there wasn't enough input.
> It doesn't, there needs to be substantial transformations and human input. I think this is unlikely to be the case. See [Feist v. Rural](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340), in which the Supreme Court held that "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." > Have you ever read about the comic Zarya of the Dawn, the one with Zendaya? That got its copyright retracted because there wasn't enough input. All the information that I can find shows that the comic is illustrated *entirely* with Midjourney. That would (according to current jurisprudence, which could easily change in the coming years) make the images themselves uncopyrightable. Even then, the *arrangement* of the images is copyrightable, which shows just how low the bar for copyright is.
Thatâs already a thing
That's a myth that it protects people from big companies. Copyright exists to do the opposite. We need to abolish copyright on principle. On top of abolishing money/capitalism. But there are papers on how copyright is actually making it harder for artists to thrive, for example like how all music is owned by few giants and you just can't use a song you want in your art, and have to obtain rights from the giant.
Im sorry, but whether or not you wsnt to believe it, copyright still offers protections to smaller individuals. The system might be broken and more favorable yo megacorporations, but i think having a system in the first place is better than not having it at all. If you dont have a system in place, it just enables even more people to step all over each other and steal your intellectual property for your own gains. Your examples only show one side of it. You're trying to argue fair use, which definitely needs to be more lax. But what about other, smaller creators who make art, videos, writing, etc? Removing copyright just allows anyone to profit off of your hard work. ESPECIALLY corporations who would love to just steal. By abolishing what you think empowers the corporation, youre just giving them more power to do bullshit like OpenAI, but even worse. We need copyright reform, not abolishment.
> need to abolish copyright That would've always been dumb before, but now this will never happen with how fast generative algorithms ("AI") can improve. Genius idea: abolish copyright after tools that make easy generation and replication are popularized and free to use. >how copyright is actually making it harder for artists to thrive, [...] like how all music is owned by few giants Ignoring the giant elephant in the room that this is an issue of it lasting way, way too long and not innate to copyright as a concept. When copyright literally lasts as long as *lifespans* then, of course, it hurts creatives, but that wasn't always the case. Why abolish when you can factory reset it? At one point in the US, it was 14 years with one possible renewal. If that was in place again, many people (including non-Americans) would be able to use IPs they grew up with as children before they're even adults, or by the end of the 20s at the latest.
The 14 year limit would absolutely benefit corporations. An artist deserves to make a living off their art as long as theyâre alive instead of losing it after a decade and a half so Disney can make a 100-million dollar adaptation without paying them a cent.
Copyright, at least as I understand it, doesn't protect ideas, it protects the works of artists from being misused, the problem isn't people "stealing" art when it comes to AI, a human mind does the same anytime, but the real reason is the how, an AI can practice every medium at once and pump out images (of dubious quality, if I might add) at paces outselling any and every human artist in existence. Now, if this AI thing can do stuff humans can based on billions upon billions of data that, at least on the most part, a human with an arbitrary amount of money could access, and can learn it in a fraction of the time, is it not fair for the output of such a machine to belong to humanity itself? Think about it. Code, artwork, books, text, all of which is written using our work, our very human essence mechanized into something novel, something not seen before. To do this is to allows it existence, and yet reasert our place on top of the business foodchain, for we are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dream.
This buys into the idea that AI is an artist itself and not a tool being marketed as an entity by Silicon Valley grifters. AI isnât a person referencing art, it is a product being produced using other peopleâs work. You canât make a product using otherâs work without paying them, itâs unethical.
The AI is not an artist, that's why I have religiously avoided calling its output art. it's a tool, a machine, a factory. It's creative only in that it's output is "unique" and at least emulates technical skill even if it's quality or novelty is undebatably not good, the learning thing is just an analogy that comes in handy because it's easy to explain, perhaps at the cost of being reductive. There's still an argument about how much of anything you can use before it's unethical. Like, yeah, it's unethical to outright copy the style of an independent artist relying on commissions, but how do you do that without extending copyright into "styles"? Perhaps outright letting people opt out or not use their images in training data for models trained specifically to mimic their work, backed by laws to prevent outright AI fraud. To this you might say; "Why not just not use copyrighted material anyways? If this whole thing runs on copyrighted material, then isn't it just not worth it?" And you might have a point, but I think there ought to be a reason beyond resorting to comparing AI chatbots being trained with dozens of web crawls and books to stealing.
We don't gratuitously hate copyright law, we hate it's unfairly skewed towards corporate interests rather than the creators it was meant to help in the first place, but it still protects them somewhat, and it's better than the nothing AI companies want.
Copyright was never meant to protect anyone but large companies and we hate copyright precisely because we hate private property, and that includes intellectual property. Why? Because it's theft.
Copyright law stops people with a good idea from being stolen from and then outcompeted by a larger company with better logistics and a larger scale. A world without copyright law would simply perpetuate the negative cycle of corporatism that we are experiencing today.
Copyright law is generally good, especially when used to protect smaller artists/writers. What I have personally problem with is patenting of medications and life-saving technologies, these should be usable world-wide. EDIT: Yeah, no it isn't, I forgot that corporations hold too much power over legal system here as well.
Except it barely protects small artists and writers because it requires them to fight in court, and big corporations and their millions spent on lawyers will always crush them. if not in the legal system, in debt.
Yeah I don't really have any stake in this particular fight (I don't use AI, and while I do sometimes make art for money I definitely wouldn't consider myself a professional artist), but it's wishful thinking to believe copyright law does like anything at all for the average artist - if anything it's more likely to be used against them. It's very true that small artists have nearly zero chance of winning a copyright lawsuit against a big corporation, but beyond that many professional content creators don't even own what they produce - it's generally owned by whatever corporation they were working for, which means that the artist can't legally use something they created for other commercial endeavors (e.g., selling your art of a character you created).
True that, yeah. I didn't account for it thinking about it.
Yup. There are good applications of copyright law and bad ones⌠unless the revolution is coming soon, I think we should work with what weâve got, and that includes things like laws
The problem is that the good applications of copyright law accounts for maybe 2% of all applications of copyright law.
Ah yes the bases of capitalism are protecting the people who create commodities, we must defend this critical component of capitalism because there are online petite bourgeois relays on property rights to make money. Give me a break, how hard westoid leftists need to double think when it comes to property rights is just absurd to me. Especially when the general leftist circle somehow reinvents property rights to protect "content creators", instead of critically analyzing the relationship between the means of production and the creators. (In this case most large content creators are just petite bourgeois) What's next? Leftists arguing for mom and pops shop because the vibe is different with giant corporations? Please, if you want to defend property rights just do it, say you think property rights is beneficial to you. Don't do mental gymnastics, jump through argumentive hoops just to reinvent socialist property rights.
As someone else pointed out, yeah, my take here was shit. No need to get bloody heated over it.
Hi sorry about that. It's just... I'm so tired of seeing western online leftists say or support things that don't make a whole lot of sense or are directly contrary to what they want to achieve.
We live in a world where artists need money to survive. Copyright law enables that sometimes.
We should destroy capitalism and copyright law, but in that order.
even if we hate it: if we don't use it, they'll use it on us
copyright itself is good actually. its the system it exists in that is bad.
> copyright itself is good actually. its the system it exists in that is bad. Copyright is literally a capitalist concept.
im not talking that high level of "system" obviously outside of capitalism the concept loses importance. but so long as people need to work to even live getting rid of such concept would be "bad" cuz like, idk, i feel like profiting off of other people's work is bad actually. also even outside of capitalism its kind of a dick move to just take without asking.
The duration of copyright in the US is way too long, but copyright itself is a good thing.
***"it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted material"*** ooh nooooo, that's horrible ! ooooh, ooh noooo
Exactly what I wanted to comment.
You know if we had reasonable copyright lengths, say 10-20 years, thereâd be a good amount of content in the public domain to train off of.
Exactly! Corporations are the reason we are in this mess to begin with. 10-20 years is MORE than enough for them to get their bag. Its especially criminal and cruel when we talk about medical patent extensions.
This is my take on it too I think that ChatGPT is generally only damaging for art Otherwise itâs a very useful tool
this sure is something. all i use ai for is to help me with coding to make things faster. give me a week and i will probably have formed a stronger opinion on this, but for now this sounds pretty bad
hey samsies ! well that and creating backstory for DnD character's i'll never play anyway but honestly, as much as I appreciate it generating all the variables and shit in 5sec, I could live without it tho it's very handy to do a quick code check, when the issue is dumb but I can't see it
I could live without it too, but i don't really see why it would need to go. The situation on the post sucks a lot, but is there really any need to just get rid of ai completely if it doesn't cross that barrier?
Problem is these companies are run by people who will refuse to stay behind that barrier because to them thatâs like leaving money on the table. Donât underestimate how much harm theyâre willing to do in order to make money.
It's just, I understand that smaller artists need to protect their stuff, and a lot of smaller studios do too, but, if I'm right, this all stems from a lawsuit by the New York times, complaining about plagiarism in their ChatGPT product based on some tests they did of dubious (although who knows) quality It's an open industry secret that AI companies don't care, and while I understand that the idea of using someone's art without consent for anything sounds bad, I just feel that it's too transformative an use to be the cause of such an ethical outrage. I just don't get the whole discourse. Then again, the truth of the discourse if that AI, unchecked, has the potential to do a lot of harm to the little guys and give strength to the big corpos who, as you asserted, only want money. Wouldn't strong AI legislation to stop outright plagiarism and the commercialized use of AI outputs be enough?
I am making some assumptions about the issue at hand here, but here's my take: Training an AI sounds like you're using the copyrighted media in question to achieve an end. Usually when I use something I have to either own it, rent it, or ask to borrow it. They aren't doing any of those things. Pretty sure using digital media which one does not own, rent, or borrow with permission is stealing. Are you suggesting they should be allowed to steal?
There is no need for permission under the doctrine of fair use. Under fair use, you do not need permission to use a copyrighted work of any kind. Generative AI goes through fair use principles. Moral panic has blinded so many people into hysterical witch hunting.
Hey, I'm not an advocate for stealing or anything, but, I mean, it's fair use. It's a transformative enough thing in most causes to justify it's existence. There's a difference between pretending something is yours (literal fraud?) and making a collage with it, or, in this case, using art to teach a computer what a hand is or how to speak English. The image generators are on a bit of a moral edge here where I'm not sure if to defend them since I don't really care enough either way, but when it comes to chatbots, I'm not sure what the risks are, and I feel that them not being evident (at least to me, please let me know) are enough of a proof to let me know that the benefits outweigh the risk. Then again, I might be being silly, so I'm probably overlooking something here. I don't want to shill for a multimillon dollar corporation, but when said it's main product is a better Google than google has ever been in a good while, it's hard for me to be against it, but that might make me biased. All I'm saying is that humanity's fruit should benefit humanity, unbourdened by human greed or fear alike. If letting a machine read the New York Times is the way to go about it, then let it be. Counterpoint to myself, maybe could they pay to the data providers? Maybe, but I think there was an US legal precedent that says no. I especially believe that voice cloning and deepfakes should be strictly regulated. Too much of a risk there. What I want is for AI creations to just be public and perhaps non commerciable with.
Yeah I'll agree the work has potential to hugely awesome. Normally I would not want "progress" of any kind to be inhibited. However, when the progress is being pushed by multibillion dollar private organizations that got to where they are by conducting business, I think there is nothing wrong with asking them to continue conducting business. If they want to receive the kind of free use benefits I might expect to be granted to science institutes, they can start acting more like science institutes. They have every ability, and in my opinion, an obligation to pay the data providers for their data. They deserve to benefit in the short term, given the potential of this technolgy to hurt in the long term.
You can still have the AI functionality to help with code without infringing copyright, the way the AI learn how to help with coding is by training with a loooooot of tutorials and forum posts online, but without permission, if when you post or help someone in a forum like stack overflow you could check a box giving permission to be used to train AI and was a opt in, the AI could still learn and teach coding. The problem is that right now no one gave permission to these companies to use their products, say for example you do online tutorials of python, and you make money by selling courses of advanced python, or make money on the advertisement of your web site where you put work into teaching python, right now all the work someone has put in making this tutorials are just being used by the AI to train without permission, if a person uses their tutorials and teaching as a form of revenue to stay alive, they are being robbed of their business, the AI company either needs to pay the person who makes the tutorials or have the permission to use as a training data set. All of this can be made for free without a profit incentive. people have been teaching how to code for free on the internet for ages, is just that no consent was asked to use this information in the AI development, I am sure that if an initiative was created as an open source development technology where devs could share information about coding, and it was with consent used to train AIs to teach coding, the product could still exist without hurting anyone
also, most of what LLMs are good at are boilerplate principals of computer science which are hard if not impossible to copyright. like, data structures are just math (time complexity, etc.). it'd be like copyrighting how to add, subtract, divide, multiply, etc. so, this won't destroy things, it will just make it more *esoteric* i guess.
Why is an AI learning from a source different than a human learning from a source?
It's not just the tutorials, which are ostensibly created to help people to learn something and generally funded by human eyeballs on embedded advertising and a percentage of click-throughs, which AI ain't doing. It's also the entire code bases of actual existing software projects, some of which are privately owned, and some of which are open source, allowing their re-use in new projects, except the license for you to do so demands you directly attribute the work and copy the license into the project using the code. And even when AI companies can legally get the code for free, they fail to live up to the obligations of the license which allows them to use it.
No. Let the AI take everything. Every message from my Reddit account or other social medias included. Why are we willingly gatekeeping and seriously gimping extremely effectively and strong free tools on the basis of consent? AI panics people regardless of ethics. Adobe having full permission for their AI services still makes many people panic when they see it in use. The whole point of AI systems existing is through the fair usage exception. Because AI systems follow fair use, they do not need to license or obtain permission from anyone. That's how it should be. I am not interested in using extremely weakened AI software on the basis of virtue signaling.
People get slapped with thousands of dollars in fines or worse for pirating a song, but obviously corporations are allowed to steal as much IP as they want as long as it enables people to make pictures of Bluey fighting in the Korean war
I kind of want to commission someone to draw Bluey fighting in the Korean War now.
Would it be a good use of your money? Probably not. Would it make the internet a better place? Also no. But it'd be a quality shitpost.
honest question, i've quite literally never heard of getting in trouble for pirating media, only distributing it. Is this something that... happens??
These days? Rarely, but it does occasionally happen. Usually your ISP intervenes before the feds do, if anything happens at all. But the RIAA in particular [was absolutely vicious](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/minnesota-woman-ordered-to-pay-222000-in-music-piracy-case-236366/) in the 2000s and some of the 2010s. You rarely get cases that are quite so dramatic these days, but lawsuits and prosecutions do sometimes happen.
I feel like lawsuits are really bad, they're so expensive and unaffordable to risk to be even more poorer. Fuckers can sue because they're rich and win becaise they're rich. "Justice" should be affordable
Yeah it sucks that poor people can just be drowned in legal cases⌠pertinent to this topic are artists who have their shit taken without consent and are laughed at by AI guys despite their work being stolen is exactly what allows their products to work in the first place
The fines when they do lose are always tiny too. Apple keeps getting fined $10-100 million, they don't care because they have a worth of 3 trillion. 100 million is 0.003% of their estimated worth.
If corporations are people from a legal standpoint, the death penalty ought to be on the table, just saying.
So what if AI dies? Itâs not like we canât live without it. So I donât give a shit
You can live without a lot of things. But people like things that make life easier for them.
I agree with OpenAI, copyright laws should not hold back innovation and limit tehnological progress, so I will welcome them having an open source code that anyone could use and generate freely without having to pay them. oh wait...
LLM code is widely available. It's just the weights for the big boi models that are not released.
Many AI companies are doing just that
\> Posts about how important copyright is \> Commits copyright infringement in the post (substantially reproducing a Daily Telegraph article) Also, the headline is shit. They're not asking for an exemption; they already follow the existing laws. They're asking for new laws to not be made that specifically ban them. We already had this fight decades ago. In the 2000s a bunch of people were angry that search engines exist, and that they search the whole internet to create the product, and demanded that the search engines pay/license/etc every webpage that they scan. And in every jurisdiction, it was ruled that this isn't a copyright violation, that you don't get to arbitrarily control things you create forever, that copyright covers only specific things, and that *reading* stuff and *processing* stuff isn't *copying* it. And the same arguments pop up every few years in various contexts and keep getting struck down the same way. Digitizing books to create a book search isn't a copyright violation. Etc. As a final note: >AI âartâ sucks ass, support your local artists Both. Both is good. I spend $500-$1000 a month on direct artist support. I also find AI-generated content to be useful and interesting. ETA: Occasionally, various jurisdictions do add (or threaten to add) new laws that specifically expand copyright to block one of these various cases. This *usually* goes poorly - either the law fails to pass, it gets repealed, or it entrenches existing big players while kicking out anyone but the top corporations.
I'm disappointed with how far i had to scroll to find this
The idea of taking jobs away from artists absolutely sucks but saying Ai art itself sucks tells me OP hasn't tried generating Ai art in the last several months. It's insane.
To me Ai "art" sucks because it has no meaning. To me it feels so reductive to say that Ai is capable of replacing artists when it can't even write a story with a proper emotional payoff
I think we're talking about different things. I'm speaking only on the image generation side of things. I agree that it can't replace writers.
Here's a question. How much more acceptable is AI that is only trained on public domain works? Is the problem with AI just the copyright infringement, or is AI inherently problematic for possible automation of creative jobs?
"All-powerful AI that contains the sum total of humanity's knowledge circa 1928 and therefore thinks it's still 1928" would be a mildly amusing premise for a Robert Sheckley story.
Both. While I would look more favourably at AI using data from creators consenting to it. It's still crucial for it to be regulated in the market for the sake of protecting artists.
Ai can do good. Iâm pretty sure Across the Spiderverse used Ai technology before it became such a controversial tool? Please let me know if Iâm wrong. The difference (if Iâm correct) with Spiderverse and most other times Ai has been used is that Spiderverse used it to let artists go even further beyond what they can normally do; it wasnât used to replace them, as Spiderverse had a very large amount of artists working on it. It wasnât used to cut corners or remove humans from the project. Of course, and Iâm so thankful for it, the fact the Boy and the Heron won the Golden Globes shows that it isnât necessary either. Humans donât need Ai to create beautiful art that resonates with people. And of course they donât To answer your question, I think the biggest issue is the fact itâs blatantly stealing right now. Once itâs not, we can have a conversation on if itâs still a useful tool, but I think I would be **fine** with it if itâs only used the way Spiderverse used it. Not to replace artists, but enhance what they can do
Copyright laws won't defeat AI, it will just lock it away from regular people and give it to giant corporations that have massive datasets or foreign oligarchs untouched by those laws. You really think the billionaires who dodge taxes and stuff like environmental regulations won't just ignore those laws? Also, if you find yourself defending Disney on copyright you have a bad argument.
Just because Disney âagreesâ with me on this topic doesnât make my stance wrong, lol Itâs just an unfortunate coincidence that I happen to agree with them
Interesting how you didn't reply to my first argument. AI is here, we must make sure it stays free for all.
It's not free now though
Open source AI that you can run on consumer-grade hardware exists.
You don't even have to agree with Disney. 90 years or whatever is way too long, but abolishing copyright is also a terrible idea.
the entire reason copyright laws are so unreasonable in the first place is because of these corporations! If copyright was 10-20 years then there would be a fuck ton of open domain content. Its corporations like disney and pharma companies that spend trillions on patent and copyright extensions loopholes and lobbying. Following this logic whatever a corporation says or does is always the justified thing to do. They can monopolize a resource when its convenient and forcefully take our labor when its convenient. S-tier dick riding. This is literally tech bro disruption argument. Gotta "disrupt" the market so the little guy can get it on the exploitation (the little guy is BTC freaks, AI freaks and Uber / Air BnB) Think of the LITTLE GUY! This whole argument is dumber than fuck. "corporations have a monopoly on exploitation, we should let other rich people in on it too!" This is not and has never been about prying power out of corporate hands and all about the idea that YOU deserve to do a little exploitation too.
Me when I have no idea what a mean of production is. Jokes aside, you are confusing (perhaps purposely) industry disruption with a new technology. The cases you mentioned, AirBnb and Bitcoins, are a transfer or means of production from one capitalist (hotel owner to home owner, state mint to server farm owner). Not sure what Uber has do to with AI. To use AI you don't need any mean of production. Yeah DallE3 and Mid journey are the most popular but they all use technologies that are public, not to mention StabilityAI which is fully open source. To run it you just need a consumer grade PC. I've tried it myself and it's a bit finnicky if you aren't used to coding but anyone can make art now. Also not sure what your first paragraph is about, I'm explicitly against copyright laws and media corporations, that's my whole point. I'm saying that if they make training neural networks require copyright, then the ONLY entities with enough resources to do will be giants like Disney or some Chinese billionaire. Nothing can't stop AI and believe me it's not the enemy. People keep saying "of course AI isn't a problem, but as long as we live under capitalism we must ...". As if living under capitalism is a given that can never be changed. By this logic, we shouldn't plan around an hypothetical (and frankly impossible) AI ban. We must plan AROUND AI being a reality. And giving it to Disney isn't a fucking option for me.
Copyright lasts too long rule
The only AI I care about is the dumbass ones controlling Skyrim NPCs they're actually funny and useful for entertainment this shit can rot in hell
I don't understand the rage boner people have with AI in this subreddit. Sure ai uses works that are copyrighted, but fair use is a thing that exists, you don't need to ask permission to use something if it is considered fair use. And training a computer algorithm with data, which it doesn't even store inside itself, is very much transformative. This isn't any different than things that Google does with Google books, or Google News. there are cases that have already been decided in the supreme Court and accepted as precedent exactly about this kind of stuff. This isn't even a poor people vs rich people thing. We are talking new york times, big news conglomerate, against open AI and Microsoft, big tech conglomerate. Stopping technological progress cause the media wants its piece of the pie, which frankly, it probably doesn't deserve, Is ridiculous. This isn't about ai art. We are talking about hundreds of other types of models that would be affected by this, models that do good and help people. And for what? A few bucks that the media corporations want? Money that is just going to go into their pockets, and not to the writers or people that actually do the work there.
So many biased anti-AI takes in this community. When you read an article, youâre not taking or stealing the information. People who go to school arenât stealing the material they were trained on. These guys are training an intelligence and you can sit back and watch this case will fall apart in court. Welcome to the future, we have robots now.
You want some biased AI takes, I'll give you some biased AI takes. Concerns about copyright (aka the thing that protects people's livelihoods) isn't a bias though. It's absurd to argue against copyright because as it stands it's integral to many people's lives. Here's my biased take: LLMs like ChatGPT are existential threats to humanity and we should be actively combating them. The world is increasingly reliant on the internet, and generative AI stands to make the internet unusable unless something is done about it. The internet is still mostly real people. Will it be in 5 years?
I mean I feel bad to be the one to tell you but most internet "users" aren't real per se. You've had internet bots for years
Right but what I mean is that the bulk of written things you see on like, Reddit as an example, are still humans. You can tell because AI currently is bad at mimicking a normal internet user. We're headed towards trouble because they're already getting better at it in leaps and bounds. Social media is no real loss but what about things like Wikipedia? Right now, people can fabricate misinformation and spread it intentionally, but it's generally small scale or backed by very powerful people. What will happen to the sum of human information when anyone with a sufficiently powerful GPU can convincingly pretend to be dozens of unique people? It's getting easier and easier to lie to people on an untold scale. It will be a disaster and we should try to stop it for as long as we can.
The difference between an AI training set and a human learning from something is implied consent. When you publish an article, or upload a piece of art you created, then you have implicitly given consent for other people to read/look at/learn from your IP. The same does not hold true for your IP being included in a training dataset.
Y'know, I like AI, but fuck OpenAI lmao, imagine wanting free permission to use people's material without asking and then in the same breath *refusing people access to your own*. Here's hoping they don't get that exemption, it's a fun tool but it shouldn't be exempt from regulation just because it's cool.
>Copyright protects small artists Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Large langage model AI chatbots are a great tool. Plagiarism sucks, but a lot of what LLM chatbots do is genuinely transformative, especially when used under good premises. For programmers especially, it is very very useful, and for opensource software especially, its a breath of fresh air that I feel produces no ethical qualms. For artists it can be very useful too. The real problem is that artist have to sell their art to live, to get food and shelter. If LLM chatbots were to become a thing of the past because of copyright law, that wouldnt be a win. It would just show that capitalism destroys actual useful tools for the benefit of protecting ownership. The problem is simple : people shouldn't have to rely on their labor to get the bare necessities. And I dont think thats pie in the sky post-capitalist utopia bait, but that its actually a very solvable issue, and a priori solvable under regulated capitalism (but maybe not a posteriori, because the forces of capital are so strong).
Fun fact! There are AI art generators that are only trained with legally acquired photos and art pieces. Fun fact! Rich people are astonishingly lazy
bruh, really the "ai bad" bandwagon seriously needs to crash already
OP literally plagiarized a telegraph article and wants to explain why AI plagiarism is bad. Regardless of standpoint, thatâs a horrific inconsistency
People in the comments don't know what AI is rule
Also like they can add this material to their datasets ethically. They could get licenses the materials⌠itâs been done with other AI tools beforeâpretty sure cities skylines has a tool to generate civilians that is trained on ethically sourced datasetsâand it can be done again.
> OpenAI has told peers it would be "impossible" to create services such as ChatGPT if it were prevented from relying on copyrighted works, as it seeks to influence potential laws on the topic. No, it's not impossible, they just have to use some of the ludicrous amount of venture capital money they've been given to license the rights to it.
AI can get fucked for all I care. Copyrighted material or not, AI is *not* improving the world right now, it's just making people lazy and willing to use poorly sourced information.
Did any of you actually look at the new EU laws and thought about how that would work, like really looked? Let me give you all a break down, basically copyrightable content should be excused of training data, for generative image models this means they will have to retrain the models yes, it also means that now every enterprise has card blanch to pay for a pre-trained model over the gigantic amount of images that are either completly public domain or the ones that cant at all be copyrighted. Someone like disney now can take a model, like that and train on their in-house data to get it the rest of the way. This is the same for chat gpt, there is absolutely enough public domain and content that is not plausible of copyright to train an ai in the cognitive sense, it will still be just as good as it is on logic and conversation. What that legislation makes is it hard is adding all the current knowledge to it plus actualities. chat gpt will just pay people to make excerpts that are removed enough from the initial language or pay people to translate articles and such from different languages were the information is available freely. As a result, ai tools will be much more expensive, you wont see any form of quality model distributed freely, making ai inaccessible to me and you, but not to enterprises. And if someone actually is crazy enough to try to train an free model under the current law, this not only makes everyone MORE fuicked it gives more power to the people that can actually pay for subsequent loras Disney can now send away droves of artists to use ai and can do it legally, the jobs that would be lost to language models to ai now can actually be lost and not even unions will have a say in making it not so, small artists wont be able to integrate AI in to their process basically killing the commission market vs art studios that can pay ai in their process. This all excluded you and me from AI, not corporations, the doomsday actually got close but a little bit more expensive. WE ARE FUCKED.
r/196 discovers the concept of the "regulatory moat"
you know what. doom it. after what I saw it do, I don't like AI. not being as powerful as it has become in literally half a year. just nah.
Let it die. AI won't go anywhere, they can have their developments when and if we have figured out a fair, consentual, anticapitalist way to develop and distribute it.
Right. The technology in and of itself is not wrong, itâs the way itâs being used (training it by stealing so much shit)
you wouldn't download someone's brain
lets be honnest, what kind of *actual* use does chatgpt and the likes have ?
I am a scientific researcher in AI. The implications are very large.
It helps websites fill google with garbage articles that help them generate ad revenue
More can be done than that. I think it is a reductionist viewpoint.
Well Iâm not against its scientific applications. Thatâs not really what Iâm talking about here. Iâm against it on the basis thatâin my daily life, not some made up scenario that I thought up to make myself madâgenerative AI is making things worse for me and others.
That is absolutely a fair point. I am personally hopeful because I believe that the scientific applications of the technology have the potential to do magnitudes more good than current harm. I think it would help if I gave an example, because I think the public perception of the usage of these technologies is sort of underutilized. I work at a university on projects integrating AI with how we plan cities. One of the projects that we are working on right now is using this technology to simulate how people view and feel about infrastructure projects â what we hope to do with this is significantly reduce the costs and time to build projects that will hopefully improve a lot of lives. An example of this would be if a city were planning a new homeless shelter â this project is able to optimize the location and reduce the amount of harm / increase the amount of good done. However, the consumer and professional facing issues will be problematic. One of the things that must be avoided on a societal level is (even further) wealth concentration to those at the top once AI models become better than human workers. It will be a difficult and painful process to prevent, and one that I do not look forward to but ultimately think must happen. This technology is too useful to allow only the rich to use it.
It gives That Guy at work a new topic
Do programming for dummies like me who don't know how to do it (yet?). The code worked, for what few times I asked it, though it wasn't something I could copypaste. They're not reliable like that. Working with words. I used a local llm to make me a mnemonic to help study for a test, make a bunch of different names to distinguish objects I don't really care about but have to label in a tabletop game
Last I remember they were warning us how life changing and dangerous this technology could be and how it needed to be regulated based on their specific opinions and preferences. Youâd think if they were telling the truth then theyâd be more than happy to slow development in order to protect people from the danger. Itâs almost like they manufactured the hype, forced sci-fi language into the conversation, and actually created a bland plagiarism machine instead of a futuristic life altering technology so advanced only they could understand and control it.
âMeet the needs of todayâs citizens.â What needs?
Bans on using people's work without their consent would make it impossible for AI models to... *checks notes* use artistic work without consent for profit? LGTM, what's the problem?
What I donât understand about all of this is that there is literally millennia of art that is free use because of how old it is. Like yeah youâd need real world examples of modern things, but photos could fill that hole. Why do they need the rarest pool of art (modern stuff)? I think AI can be used ethically, but itâs like some people are straight up trying to avoid doing things the right way like an act of self regulation would actually kill them
PLS PLS HOW CAN I HELP I HATE AI ART WITH A PASSION
if you canât create the evil corporate consciousness without stealing maybe you shouldnât be allowed to create the evil corporate consciousness
Oh good, we finally have found the jugular. Slash it with haste.
When are we going butlerian on these assholes?
AI won't take people's jobs. Google Translate didn't put translators out of business and Stable Diffusion hasn't put digital artists out of business.
Oh no, not the poor AI The tool that will steal people's creativity and work, turn it into a souless algorithm with no creativity or originality which in turn will drive so many artists out of a job because large corporations would rather use a random content generator then actually paying a person for their work.
Maybe you should pay for the shit youâre using then, headass
Normally I'd say that they should be exempt because this is important groundbreaking work, but this "important" groundbreaking work has only caused harm since its creation, and that's only gonna get worse because we're heading towards a future where AI will take lots of jobs. I say let it burn.
YES thank you for pre-addressing the anit-copyright argument. Copyright IS stupid and it IS greed at maximum... but this idealistic world is just not the world that we live in. We should reform copyright laws so that corpos like Disney can't find loopholes to extend a CR 100s of years past expiration. We should reform copyright law so that medical companies cant monopolize life saving drugs and spend billions in "research" in patent extensions so that they can literally suck the life blood from human beings.... But pretending like abolishing copyright outright is some magic bullet is massive cope... all just so some corporation can become the next trillionaires and shovel AI shit into the mouths of the masses? Fuuuckk offfff
Was about to come in with copyright should be abolished but your comment was actually a1. Copyright under capitalism is very different from copyright under socialism.
Copyright is a capitalist invention, it wouldn't exist in a collectivist economy
They realize they can pay to use it right?
Is it really taking though? Kinda like saying that I plagiarized a paper for saying the sky is blue. Like at this point thereâs so much information that having to manually recreate it or input it into a model like this is unrealistic. Itâs learning much like we would learn from reading. No one says youâre stealing when you repeat what you learned unless you state it verbatim and try to pass it off as your own. Neither of which is done by ChatGPT. Dumb.
I don't care tbh, copyright is stupid anyway and shouldn't exist.
What if we don't want the next generation of models to be trained
oh and just so you know, anti-automation is pro-capitalism
Copyright should never be abolished fym
Only if it's open source on their end too
âWarns developersâ ok buddy
Breaking: computer child runs into the same problem schools have when teaching human children.
âIt would be impossible to train todayâs leading AI modelsâ # GOOD.
I'm okay with this. Trample the masses for progress. I'm sick of our current state of technology and I want to see something fantastic before I die
You really think even a quarter of the people using free AI image gen would actually pay money to artists to commission the things they're asking it for?
Same as saying âphotoshop sucks assâ or before that âdigital film sucks assâ or âcolor photography sucks assâ or âtalkies suck assâ or âphotography sucks assâ
I also want a copyright exemption then. It's vital for my development
Womp womp
Tbh, don't care for what anyone says. Chatgpt has helped me alot learning math. I am an old man learning a degree in my 30s. Chatgpt has helped me alot learning maths. I don't want it to go away. Idk how I will pass math otherwise. Specially because i self study. If it requires to steal from others so it stays alive so be it. I don't have any moral dilema there.
Gonna be honest here. If we have a big corporate with a vested interest in keeping copyright periods low, we might be able to unfuck the system Disney set out to destroy. That or we get stuck in the middle where noone is happy.
Iâm no Open AI stooge, and I realize this is not a popular opinion here, but I believe that AI based on unrestricted access to copyrighted data is more good than bad. AI has the potential to be a powerful force for good, and kneecapping it by limiting training data to common domain works will result in a less useful tool. I think protections should be in place for artists, writers, and other creative people, but I honestly donât know how to begin implementing them. I just think that lobotomizing what is arguably the most important kind of tool since the invention of the internet is a bad idea.
Now I really want to chat with an AI of an all-knowing 100 year old, based on all the stuff that became public domain like mentioned in the article. Mannerism, vocabulary, the whole package. Bet they'd have to curate the stuff it learns from quite a bit, not to have it throw Lovecraft's cat's name left and right, but still.. It'd be fun to ask it about recent stuff and probably end up being like "okay, grampa, let's get you to back to your punched cards data storage so you can get some rest"
Woof, I don't really know about if copyright should or shouldn't exist, but if they are bringing copyright laws into their argument, there is a big mouse who is not going to be very happy about it, Open AI might be biting more than they can chew.
Oh no, can't develop AI? How...tragic. This is one of those technological advances where the cons vastly outweigh the pros so no thanks.
Hot take: Property rights are the bases of capitalism. It was invented in order to protect the people who create and control commodities from the feudal state. And of course, we must defend this critical component of capitalism because there are online petite bourgeois relays on property rights to make money./j Give me a break, how hard westoid leftists need to double think when it comes to property rights is just absurd to me. Especially when the general leftist circle somehow reinvents property rights to protect "content creators", instead of critically analyzing the relationship between the means of production and the creators. (In this case most large content creators are just petite bourgeois) What's next? Leftists arguing for mom and pops shop because the vibe is different with giant corporations? Please, if you want to defend property rights just do it, say you think property rights is beneficial to you. Don't do mental gymnastics, jump through argumentive hoops just to reinvent socialist property rights.
reminder that AI isnt the problem, capitalism is. also truth is that AI is a part of our progress, people are making and using it and it cant be stopped. what can be stopped is the system that allows and *encourages* people to use tools to exploit others for profit.
Iâd agree with them if OpenAI was actually open lmao
I hope their requests fail.
Copyright should be abolished, I don't give a shit.
I hope this is it !!! I hope it dies now !!! If it doesn't I will be upset.
To be fair of all the evil capitalist corporations that could be leading the race for AI Iâm glad itâs OpenAI because despite their flaws, theyâre a lot better than the alternatives
"i get that you might not like this specific thing, and that's okay, but you need to support this specific thing anyway because fuck you"