From 2016:
> They’d raised a billion dollars and hired an impressive team of thirty researchers—but what for? “There are twenty to thirty people in the field, including Nick Bostrom and the Wikipedia article,” Amodei said, “who are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.”
> “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.”
Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
have you tried saying the name out loud?
Was that a deliberate misdirection? Not sure. Apparently, Elon Musk takes credit for the name and wanted the company's products to be open source. However, Musk has said a lot of things about companies he is involved with that later turn out to be untrue.
Funny how putting forth lots of contrarian red tape after and because someone has made all the claims and promises has a way of doing that.
Imagine that Acme Music hires large sweatshops of workers, who are tasked with listening to trending (copyrighted) songs and then go through grueling practice to sing and play near-perfect performances of those songs, delivered to any customer who asks for one.
That business model is still copyright infringement! It remains so no matter how much you de-automate by having human-brains replace machines at the same tedious tasks.
P.S.: Kind of like the inverse of patents, where "$task, but this time with a computer" is not automatically a new patent-able thing.
whereas visually copying style somehow is more possible and ok
But we’re really talking about style. Think reggae, isn’t it immediately obvious what style of music you’re listening to?
Of course this is a super bad n=1 qualitative study with very bad response coding, but maybe this is simply because I haven't spent enough time with musical style copying LLMs (if there are any), and only spent about a minute listening to that forever death metal youtube AI channel.
Style is not subject to copyright, only expression. If there are unique lyrics and unique melodies under two bars then there is no copyright infringement.
A song that sounds like other pop songs is basically the very nature of pop music.
Pick a genre, for example reggae, and you’ll find a lot of perfectly legal songs that are almost indistinguishable aside from the musicians who are playing the music.
In this case you can assume Acme Music is making purposeful performances/impersonations of the original songs/artists, because the goal of the scenario is to show that "but I used a human brain to do it" isn't a magical get-out-of-infringement-free card.
Illustrating the boundaries of fair-use or transformative works is... Well, a somewhat-separate issue that would need a different kind of scenario.
Again, I am honestly confused by what is meant in this thread!
1. Conasg: Taking huge amounts of copyrighted material without consent and selling access to it seems illegal.
2. Intrasight: Humans learn from copyrighted material all the time, and indirectly profit from it, so why can't the AI?
3. Me: Some of the stuff the software is being used to do would still copyright infringement even if you had teams of humans (inefficiently) doing it instead.
There literally are teams of people paid to deliver reggae music to people. Or pop music. I’m not well versed enough in trap music but it all sounds like the same autotuned vocals over a high-hat heavy percussive back track! It may be derivative and worthy of criticism, but only in an artistic manner. It is not derivative in a legal manner.
If you work in copyright law, why ask random internet-commenters? The allegations and arguments are the legal filing [0], such as:
> [4] Defendants’ GenAI tools can generate output that recites Times content verbatim [...]
> [5] Defendants also [...] generate responses that contain verbatim excerpts and detailed summaries of Times articles that are significantly longer and more detailed than those returned by traditional search engines. By providing Times content without The Times’s permission or authorization, Defendants’ tools undermine and damage The Times’s relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue.
> [6] [T]here is nothing “transformative” about using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it. Because the outputs of Defendants’ GenAI models compete with and closely mimic the inputs used to train them, copying Times works for that purpose is not fair use.
[0] 1:23-cv-11195 - https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20...
[5] Excerpts and Summaries are fair use, or should be.
[6] Is there a market for a chatbot that simply repeats a single news source? Its not really the purpose of the product.
Imagine that Acme Music hires large sweatshops of workers, who are tasked with listening to trending (copyrighted) songs and then go through grueling practice to sing and play near-perfect performances of those songs, delivered to any customer who asks for one.
Is just plain wrong on how I would interpret the statement.
But I have given you the benefit of the doubt and checked to see if you meant they were literally just re-recording already existing pop songs.
If they were just pumping out artistically derivative drivel of trending styles, but not derivative in terms of copyright law, that’s perfectly legal.
I’ve been asking for clarity, not your opinion on the law.
And even when it comes to copyright law, a good lawyer with enough of their client’s money can make any sort of argument and find a ruling in their favor, but these legal discussions tend to be spoken of in absolutes by random internet commentators!
Perhaps because they're tools, not people.
So why should an artificial brain be treated differently, especially when it's been shown how you can prompt one in a way to almost regurgitate the exact copyright info (similar to how you can prompt a human brain)?