If copyright did not exist art would not even exist because no one would be urged to get into making and developing art if there wasn't any protection provided. So no massive datasets would be formed for AI to feed on.
@Plankton_menance art exists and existed without copyright everywhere. MIT or GPL licenced code also exists everywhere. and many artists get money upfront on requested works. many influcers get paid with sites like patreon with hundreds or thousands of patrons donating them. if you can't make money without copyright, then you shouldn't, it shouldn't be a way to make money, its not natural. Imagine if we didn't have ips and anyone was able to produce their own star wars. there would be popular versions and timelines people would take as cannon. and unpopular versions would die in the market.
@@nomadshiba I see nothing wrong with copyright law. Like what is so wrong if someone wants to protect their pieces from being used in a way that it wasn't intended by the creator. Also now progammers are uploading their code especially with the AI related api's but earlier code was rarely made public like this. Why? Because that code took hardwork to create and someone else just benefits easily through someone else's hardwork.
@@nomadshiba your starwars eg makes me sick to the stomach. You're basically telling me people like you are so lazy that they can't even think of something orginal that can be different but have the same genre. Why should you want to be another version of somthing that is someone else's brainchild and be allowed to make money off of that?
@@nomadshibayou clearly don’t know much about copyright, it seems. Without copyright, anyone could make copies of your works without compensation. Imagine you spend a 300 million $ budget on a movie like star wars, just for anyone to make a copy of the final product and legally sell it to the world for free or basically nothing. Who would invest anything any more in such kind of productions? No one. Spend millions on making a video game? No more - Everyone can make copies, the developer will have no revenues. The result would be there are no more productions, and „art“ would be limited to whatever you can pull out of your ass without any considerable cost, time and effort..
If you can't train on copywritten material then China gets the best AI. That's probably already happened or is soon to with their Kling AI video generator. And like the other commenters copywrite is actually a pretty unnatural concept and has probably delayed human progress at least 100 years.
1) More data simply doesn't mean better AI. Only idiots who don't understand how ML works actually believe more data = better. 2) No, you'll just hollow out the IP landscape of the ecosystem without basic intellectual property protections. 3) Copyright is actually a pretty 'natural' concept along the same lines of basic property rights, and is PRECISELY what helps society to flourish because it makes it safe for BASIC investment of economic effort. Amazing how AI proponents are so gormless that they don't understand any of this.
@@TychonAchae This isn't copywrite though, the AI isn't taking the data, its learning off it to create a similar style and concept. Its the same as a student learning from viewing paintings. this is how it works, there is no other way to really look at this and think..well, people shouldn't learn then! AI is learning exactly the same as the human brain. understand form and context, then parody it. You can't make laws against learning without having some of the most civilization level stupid concepts...no learning unless someone said its okay. This would make only like 5 anime artists ever..because everyone else is doing the same style. Its been tried over and over and always the same result. Style is not protected.
Shows how you completely have no idea what you're talking about. Because copyrights ARE like patents in this regard: They have a lifespan, they're not eternal. After which they pass into public domain.
@@TychonAchae And how long is that life span? "for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years" - U.S. Copyright Office Might as well be eternal. Also you don't even have to register it.
@@TychonAchae that lifespan is far longer than any human lifespan. Death of the author + 70 years is beyond absurd. It should be 20 years, then done. Once it hits the market? 20 years, then part of the creative commons.
I am broadly pro-AI; I think AI solves a lot of problems that we've been struggling with for years, or perhaps decades now, and might be the only reasonable solution to solve a variety of economic issues, but I do think that with the rapid replacement of human labor at various levels intelligent legislature must be put into place in order to soften the impacts of the technology. A tentative first step which I feel would be suitable for Japan in particular is to provide subsidies (particularly given that the lax stance on copyright is intended to be used to produce economic growth and technological leadership) to the various entertainment industries which are culturally valuable but will be heavily impacted by the application of AI. Music, animation, comics, novels, Japan is an absolute cultural powerhouse with outsized impact given its geographic size, and I think that there is incredible value to be protected there. In the long term I think universal basic income is the only sane strategy in the face of the mass automation of human work, but I think there are a variety of intelligent strategies which could help Japan become a center for a new technological wave while also preserving many of the cultural influences which helped Japan maintain its economy in the wake of the lost decade.
First of all don't assume a smart AI can bring about some utopia. It cant. for that to happen many real and tangible things need to happen in order to affect peoples lives. Being pro AI is just a race to make corporations more powerful so they can own more of the earth. see for yourself, massive companies exist and they do nothing to solve peoples problems, instead they focus on competing and growing aggressively.
He clearly didn't do proper research. Copyright is owned by publishers. Animation studios and their army of overworked cute Japanese girls is just that. Cute, cheap labor that doesn't even know how to complain because they will lose face at work... Publishers are absolutely up in arms because they will no longer be the one deciding who,what and where. And that is a good thing just not for them.
Copyright has long overstepped any reasonable boundary IMO. What should have been put in place to protect an instantiation, instance, implementation (call it what you will) of an idea is now being used as a hammer to try and establish dominion over what people plainly see. This is absurd. "A photograph of a teddy bear, wearing a blue sweater, sitting on a bed, surrounded by peonies"...simply is NOT something that any one individual creator can or should be able to copyright. How something was trained should be irrelevant, and I'm glad Japan understands this, as it needs more software and technology to help its aging population. We should not be stopping progress just so a few already-successful artists like Greg Rutkowski can continue to have a higher demand for their services, or for bad commission artists to be able to get paid.
"What should have been put in place to protect an instantiation, instance, implementation (call it what you will) of an idea is now being used as a hammer to try and establish dominion over what people plainly see. This is absurd." That's because it is absurd, because that's not what copyright does at all. All this shows me is how AI bros clearly do not even understand the basics of what copyright is, why it's important, and how they're in way over their heads with undue entitlement to others economic efforts.
@@TychonAchae we understand why it's important, but that it's gone way over the line. An instantiation of an idea cannot prevent someone else from making a competing product unless there is a distinct and provable similarity with a pre-existing work. Hence COPY-right. Yes, there's the whole gray area of "derivatives", but who determines what's sufficiently different? Very few artists are doing anything more than IP squatting here.
@@Ilyak1986 its not just artists , its giant franchises like Disney with I.P.s to protect. if this is progress whose it for? artists ? comic publishers dont want to use A.I. because it could open them up to lawsuits. its an interesting image making toy but it maybe too risky to make products with.
The government also has to factor in what happens when AI gets good enough to take peoples jobs. Not sure our current economic systems could handle >10% AI job displacement without a redesign.
Going against technological progress is stupid at best, and it will not even change anything, the companies making AI will win in the end. Actually, it is already over as there are many powerful models out that are free and completely open source. Even if every country on the planet bans AI models (which will never happen), it will only set progress back for 3-5 years. After that anyone will be able to create any kind of model he wants using the already existing methods with the better hardware we will have by then (and nothing on the planet can stop the open source community). ps: Human artists already made me their enemy with their stupid stance regarding AI. And the worst thing is that everything they use against it is BS, they just show that they are completely ignorant about the tech. I have already been using AI for almost everything I want, saving 1000s of euros in the last 13-14 months, and dozens of hours interacting with dumb and entitled humans. And I will continue to get more and more content from AI models, replacing even more humans in the process.
Thanks for commenting - I think I broadly agree with the general points you make, though probably have a bit more sympathy for artists (even if I disagree overall). I can understand how the advent of AI would be scary for many of them, especially if they feel like they’ve been ripped off and got nothing in return. The whole idea of copyright will probably have to be re-thought from the bottom up in the same way the music industry pivoted to streaming.
Yes and no. Current AI models will continue to work fine without new data - but if we want to continue to expand their capability and knowledge, new data will be needed for training them...
"In Japan it is perfectly legal and acceptable for AI to learn from information on the internet without infringing on any copyright law" This is patently and categorically incorrect and easy to fact check with even 5 minutes of Google searching.
You're right. a quick google check will fill you in. And he is right, its 100% fine.: "Copyright. Currently, per Japanese copyright law (PDF), re-affirmed as current policy in April 2023 by Keiko Nagaoka, the Japanese Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, states that all works are permitted to be used for the purposes of AI training." Awkward, huh?
The nuance seems pretty interesting, there's some distinction around a term translated as "non-enjoyment purposes", you are not allowed to make a model that is purposely trained to reproduce a specific set of works or collections (e.g. making a harry potter generator) like through for example fine-tuning or purposely overfitting, and you're not allowed to just supply copyrighted stuff like through retrieval-agumented generation methods.
@@robxsiq7744 Yes, this seems incredibly sensible. Japan should be praised for this clarity of foresight. People do not understand how deeply in trouble we are if we do not let AI allow us to continue the spiritual predictions of Moore's law, if we do not allow the AI to learn from the best of humanity. You may think for artists it's "just pictures", but we will never reach our goal unless there is an AI that can train on not only words but also video and also images and art in order to fully understand the world and truly make the world better for those that are in it.
Japan may have the most artists per capita in the world. If the government doesn't protect them, it's over for the country.
Japan has a dwindling aging population. If they don't embrace all aspects of AI, its over for the country.
copyright was a mistake
If copyright did not exist art would not even exist because no one would be urged to get into making and developing art if there wasn't any protection provided. So no massive datasets would be formed for AI to feed on.
@Plankton_menance art exists and existed without copyright everywhere. MIT or GPL licenced code also exists everywhere.
and many artists get money upfront on requested works.
many influcers get paid with sites like patreon with hundreds or thousands of patrons donating them.
if you can't make money without copyright, then you shouldn't, it shouldn't be a way to make money, its not natural.
Imagine if we didn't have ips and anyone was able to produce their own star wars. there would be popular versions and timelines people would take as cannon. and unpopular versions would die in the market.
@@nomadshiba I see nothing wrong with copyright law. Like what is so wrong if someone wants to protect their pieces from being used in a way that it wasn't intended by the creator. Also now progammers are uploading their code especially with the AI related api's but earlier code was rarely made public like this. Why? Because that code took hardwork to create and someone else just benefits easily through someone else's hardwork.
@@nomadshiba your starwars eg makes me sick to the stomach. You're basically telling me people like you are so lazy that they can't even think of something orginal that can be different but have the same genre. Why should you want to be another version of somthing that is someone else's brainchild and be allowed to make money off of that?
@@nomadshibayou clearly don’t know much about copyright, it seems. Without copyright, anyone could make copies of your works without compensation. Imagine you spend a 300 million $ budget on a movie like star wars, just for anyone to make a copy of the final product and legally sell it to the world for free or basically nothing. Who would invest anything any more in such kind of productions? No one. Spend millions on making a video game? No more - Everyone can make copies, the developer will have no revenues. The result would be there are no more productions, and „art“ would be limited to whatever you can pull out of your ass without any considerable cost, time and effort..
If you can't train on copywritten material then China gets the best AI. That's probably already happened or is soon to with their Kling AI video generator. And like the other commenters copywrite is actually a pretty unnatural concept and has probably delayed human progress at least 100 years.
1) More data simply doesn't mean better AI. Only idiots who don't understand how ML works actually believe more data = better.
2) No, you'll just hollow out the IP landscape of the ecosystem without basic intellectual property protections.
3) Copyright is actually a pretty 'natural' concept along the same lines of basic property rights, and is PRECISELY what helps society to flourish because it makes it safe for BASIC investment of economic effort.
Amazing how AI proponents are so gormless that they don't understand any of this.
Social progress contradictions
@@TychonAchae This isn't copywrite though, the AI isn't taking the data, its learning off it to create a similar style and concept. Its the same as a student learning from viewing paintings. this is how it works, there is no other way to really look at this and think..well, people shouldn't learn then! AI is learning exactly the same as the human brain. understand form and context, then parody it. You can't make laws against learning without having some of the most civilization level stupid concepts...no learning unless someone said its okay. This would make only like 5 anime artists ever..because everyone else is doing the same style. Its been tried over and over and always the same result. Style is not protected.
Copyright is completely broken, it should be like patents, if you want to protect an idea you get a right for 20 year.
Shows how you completely have no idea what you're talking about. Because copyrights ARE like patents in this regard: They have a lifespan, they're not eternal. After which they pass into public domain.
@@TychonAchae And how long is that life span? "for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years" - U.S. Copyright Office
Might as well be eternal.
Also you don't even have to register it.
@@TychonAchae that lifespan is far longer than any human lifespan. Death of the author + 70 years is beyond absurd. It should be 20 years, then done. Once it hits the market? 20 years, then part of the creative commons.
another reason why all ai training data must be publically available
I am broadly pro-AI; I think AI solves a lot of problems that we've been struggling with for years, or perhaps decades now, and might be the only reasonable solution to solve a variety of economic issues, but I do think that with the rapid replacement of human labor at various levels intelligent legislature must be put into place in order to soften the impacts of the technology.
A tentative first step which I feel would be suitable for Japan in particular is to provide subsidies (particularly given that the lax stance on copyright is intended to be used to produce economic growth and technological leadership) to the various entertainment industries which are culturally valuable but will be heavily impacted by the application of AI. Music, animation, comics, novels, Japan is an absolute cultural powerhouse with outsized impact given its geographic size, and I think that there is incredible value to be protected there.
In the long term I think universal basic income is the only sane strategy in the face of the mass automation of human work, but I think there are a variety of intelligent strategies which could help Japan become a center for a new technological wave while also preserving many of the cultural influences which helped Japan maintain its economy in the wake of the lost decade.
the countries who deregulate ai will grow and those regulate will lose
why?
First of all don't assume a smart AI can bring about some utopia. It cant. for that to happen many real and tangible things need to happen in order to affect peoples lives. Being pro AI is just a race to make corporations more powerful so they can own more of the earth. see for yourself, massive companies exist and they do nothing to solve peoples problems, instead they focus on competing and growing aggressively.
@@georgenemtzov Imagine if countries tried to stop the internet because they were worried about postmen and librarians falling behind.
He clearly didn't do proper research.
Copyright is owned by publishers.
Animation studios and their army of overworked cute Japanese girls is just that.
Cute, cheap labor that doesn't even know how to complain because they will lose face at work...
Publishers are absolutely up in arms because they will no longer be the one deciding who,what and where.
And that is a good thing just not for them.
Copyright has long overstepped any reasonable boundary IMO. What should have been put in place to protect an instantiation, instance, implementation (call it what you will) of an idea is now being used as a hammer to try and establish dominion over what people plainly see. This is absurd.
"A photograph of a teddy bear, wearing a blue sweater, sitting on a bed, surrounded by peonies"...simply is NOT something that any one individual creator can or should be able to copyright. How something was trained should be irrelevant, and I'm glad Japan understands this, as it needs more software and technology to help its aging population.
We should not be stopping progress just so a few already-successful artists like Greg Rutkowski can continue to have a higher demand for their services, or for bad commission artists to be able to get paid.
"What should have been put in place to protect an instantiation, instance, implementation (call it what you will) of an idea is now being used as a hammer to try and establish dominion over what people plainly see. This is absurd."
That's because it is absurd, because that's not what copyright does at all. All this shows me is how AI bros clearly do not even understand the basics of what copyright is, why it's important, and how they're in way over their heads with undue entitlement to others economic efforts.
@@TychonAchae we understand why it's important, but that it's gone way over the line. An instantiation of an idea cannot prevent someone else from making a competing product unless there is a distinct and provable similarity with a pre-existing work. Hence COPY-right. Yes, there's the whole gray area of "derivatives", but who determines what's sufficiently different?
Very few artists are doing anything more than IP squatting here.
@@Ilyak1986 its not just artists , its giant franchises like Disney with I.P.s to protect. if this is progress whose it for? artists ? comic publishers dont want to use A.I. because it could open them up to lawsuits. its an interesting image making toy but it maybe too risky to make products with.
I LOVE ai taking jobs. Its very funny.
Disagree. Not funny - but definitely a challenge we have to overcome
@jairit1606 It wouldn’t be funny if it takes your job… careful what you wish for.
The government also has to factor in what happens when AI gets good enough to take peoples jobs. Not sure our current economic systems could handle >10% AI job displacement without a redesign.
True
Going against technological progress is stupid at best, and it will not even change anything, the companies making AI will win in the end.
Actually, it is already over as there are many powerful models out that are free and completely open source. Even if every country on the planet bans AI models (which will never happen), it will only set progress back for 3-5 years. After that anyone will be able to create any kind of model he wants using the already existing methods with the better hardware we will have by then (and nothing on the planet can stop the open source community).
ps: Human artists already made me their enemy with their stupid stance regarding AI. And the worst thing is that everything they use against it is BS, they just show that they are completely ignorant about the tech.
I have already been using AI for almost everything I want, saving 1000s of euros in the last 13-14 months, and dozens of hours interacting with dumb and entitled humans. And I will continue to get more and more content from AI models, replacing even more humans in the process.
Thanks for commenting - I think I broadly agree with the general points you make, though probably have a bit more sympathy for artists (even if I disagree overall). I can understand how the advent of AI would be scary for many of them, especially if they feel like they’ve been ripped off and got nothing in return.
The whole idea of copyright will probably have to be re-thought from the bottom up in the same way the music industry pivoted to streaming.
This is not technological progress. This is a plagiarism machine.
Is it true these AI models if they stop getting new imput they shut down. If so this might be the reason why AI won't kill us lol.
Yes and no. Current AI models will continue to work fine without new data - but if we want to continue to expand their capability and knowledge, new data will be needed for training them...
That's a shame could have been a fail safe. Just have to teach them to like us then. Rather than to exploit us, like we do now
"In Japan it is perfectly legal and acceptable for AI to learn from information on the internet without infringing on any copyright law"
This is patently and categorically incorrect and easy to fact check with even 5 minutes of Google searching.
You're right. a quick google check will fill you in. And he is right, its 100% fine.: "Copyright. Currently, per Japanese copyright law (PDF), re-affirmed as current policy in April 2023 by Keiko Nagaoka, the Japanese Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, states that all works are permitted to be used for the purposes of AI training."
Awkward, huh?
The nuance seems pretty interesting, there's some distinction around a term translated as "non-enjoyment purposes", you are not allowed to make a model that is purposely trained to reproduce a specific set of works or collections (e.g. making a harry potter generator) like through for example fine-tuning or purposely overfitting, and you're not allowed to just supply copyrighted stuff like through retrieval-agumented generation methods.
Here's where I found this info www.bunka.go.jp/english/policy/copyright/pdf/94055801_01.pdf
@@WiseWeeabo I am onboard for no overfitting. inspiration, not replication.
@@robxsiq7744 Yes, this seems incredibly sensible. Japan should be praised for this clarity of foresight.
People do not understand how deeply in trouble we are if we do not let AI allow us to continue the spiritual predictions of Moore's law, if we do not allow the AI to learn from the best of humanity.
You may think for artists it's "just pictures", but we will never reach our goal unless there is an AI that can train on not only words but also video and also images and art in order to fully understand the world and truly make the world better for those that are in it.