You can’t sue the paint and brush manufacturer because they made it possible for John Doe’s replicas or style. Generative AI and LLMs are a tool not a product. It is the exploitation of them as a product that is the problem. I can make the same stuff in Blender or some shit program from Autodesk, and you won’t sue them. No one tells people what to prompt. Current AI is like the internet, it is access to enormous amounts of human knowledge but with more practical utility and a few caveats. AI just happened a lot quicker and the Luddites and Lawyers are going to whine as much as the criminal billionaire class is going to exploit those that fail to understand the technology. Almost all of these situations/articles/lawsuits/politics are about trying to create a monopoly for Altmann and prevent public adoption of open source offline AI as much as possible. If everyone had access to a 70B or larger LLM right now, all of the internet would change overnight. You don’t need search engines or much of the internet structure of exploitation any more. If a company can control this technology, with majority adoption, that company will be the successor of Microsoft and then Google. All the peripheral nonsense is about controlling the market by any means necessary, preventing open minded people from looking into the utility, and playing gatekeepers to the new world paradigm of the next decade or two.
Paint making companies typically don’t have massive databases of illegally obtained copies of other people’s copyrighted images. Nor does paint fundamentally requires the existence of said database for the manufacture of paint itself. That’s where the “it’s just a tool” argument falls apart.
I love your enthusiasm though, to think that giving access to a massive llm for everyone would rid the internet of exploitation is extremely naïve and hopelessly optimistic.
It is no different than your awareness of a subject or style of work. I can draw a perfect Mickey Mouse. I learned that when I was ~6 years old. I’ve drawn hundreds, maybe even a couple thousand. Who do I need to sign my life over to in forfeit. None of the lawsuits about AI are remotely compelling IMO. They are all petty money grabs by people that can’t adjust to a new paradigm. The kind of knowledge an AI can generate presently is no different than what the average person with a passionate interest and familiarity is capable of doing. AI is the democratization of such passionate skill and interest. This path of nonsense leads to thought policing stupidity like we are living one thousand years ago. The AI was not created with the intent of replacing or forging a work of and kind. There was no intent. The intent is key here. If knowing of a style or work is wrong, all of human culture and society fall apart as sharing of copyrighted works in any way is now illegal. School text books - nope, the latest news on TV - nope, the last book you read - nope, the datasheet you read and need to report on in your next company meeting - you can’t share those copyrighted ideas with anyone else either. Sound extreme? It is where this logic leads. This is a dumb joke of a legal case.
You can’t sue the paint and brush manufacturer because they made it possible for John Doe’s replicas or style. Generative AI and LLMs are a tool not a product. It is the exploitation of them as a product that is the problem. I can make the same stuff in Blender or some shit program from Autodesk, and you won’t sue them. No one tells people what to prompt. Current AI is like the internet, it is access to enormous amounts of human knowledge but with more practical utility and a few caveats. AI just happened a lot quicker and the Luddites and Lawyers are going to whine as much as the criminal billionaire class is going to exploit those that fail to understand the technology. Almost all of these situations/articles/lawsuits/politics are about trying to create a monopoly for Altmann and prevent public adoption of open source offline AI as much as possible. If everyone had access to a 70B or larger LLM right now, all of the internet would change overnight. You don’t need search engines or much of the internet structure of exploitation any more. If a company can control this technology, with majority adoption, that company will be the successor of Microsoft and then Google. All the peripheral nonsense is about controlling the market by any means necessary, preventing open minded people from looking into the utility, and playing gatekeepers to the new world paradigm of the next decade or two.
Paint making companies typically don’t have massive databases of illegally obtained copies of other people’s copyrighted images. Nor does paint fundamentally requires the existence of said database for the manufacture of paint itself. That’s where the “it’s just a tool” argument falls apart.
I love your enthusiasm though, to think that giving access to a massive llm for everyone would rid the internet of exploitation is extremely naïve and hopelessly optimistic.
It is no different than your awareness of a subject or style of work. I can draw a perfect Mickey Mouse. I learned that when I was ~6 years old. I’ve drawn hundreds, maybe even a couple thousand. Who do I need to sign my life over to in forfeit. None of the lawsuits about AI are remotely compelling IMO. They are all petty money grabs by people that can’t adjust to a new paradigm. The kind of knowledge an AI can generate presently is no different than what the average person with a passionate interest and familiarity is capable of doing. AI is the democratization of such passionate skill and interest. This path of nonsense leads to thought policing stupidity like we are living one thousand years ago. The AI was not created with the intent of replacing or forging a work of and kind. There was no intent. The intent is key here. If knowing of a style or work is wrong, all of human culture and society fall apart as sharing of copyrighted works in any way is now illegal. School text books - nope, the latest news on TV - nope, the last book you read - nope, the datasheet you read and need to report on in your next company meeting - you can’t share those copyrighted ideas with anyone else either. Sound extreme? It is where this logic leads. This is a dumb joke of a legal case.