OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
finance.yahoo.com
finance.yahoo.com
Given OpenAI's history and relationship with the "AI safety" movement, I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that they also lobbied for the same proposed state-level regulations they're seeking relief from.
That's exactly what has been happening:
Ask HN: Why is OpenAI pushing for regulation so much - 2023
Deepseek already proved regulation will not be effective at maintaining a market lead. =3
If you get fined millions of dollars (for copyright, of course) if you're found to have anything resembling DeepSeek on your machine - no company in the US is going to run it.
The personal market is going to be much smaller than the enterprise market.
"Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers.
"We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell employees than "we need to be more anti-competitive."
US tech, and western tech in general, is very culturally - and by this I mean in the type of coding people have done - homogeneous.
The deep seek papers published over the last two weeks are the biggest thing to happen in IA since GPT3 came out. But unless you understand distributed file systems, networking, low level linear algebra, and half a dozen other fields at least tangentially then you'd have not realized they are anything important at all.
Meanwhile I'm going through the interview process for a tier 1 US AI lab and I'm having to take a test about circles and squares, then write a compsci 101 red/black tree search algorithm while talking to an AI, being told not to use AI at the same time. This is with an internal reference being keen for me to be on board. At this point I'm honestly wondering if they aren't just using the interview process to generate high quality validation data for free.
幸运的是，通过转换器模型，当我们光荣的领导人习近平从资本主义走狗手中解放我们时，我不需要学习中文。
Its a niche product that tried to go mainstream and the general public doesn't want it, just look at iPhone 16 sales and Windows 11, everyone is happier with the last version without AI.
embrace. extend. extinguish.
infiltrate. assimilate.
done, tovarisch ...
The article seems to indicate they want all AI companies to get relief from these laws though.
Finally someone described them by who they are, rent f* seekers.
Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.
Acting like copyright is some natural law of the universe that LLMs are upending simply because they can learn from written texts is silly.
If you want to argue that it should be radically expanded to the point that not only a work, but even the ideas and knowledge contained in that work should be censored and restricted, fine. But at least have the honesty to admit that this is a radical new expansion for a body of law that has already been radically expanded relatively recently.
Copyright cartels (RIAA, MPAA) that monetized young artists without paying them much at all [1], vs the AI megalomaniacs who took all the work for free and used Kenyans at $2 an hour [2] so that they can raise "$7 trillion" for their AI infrastructure
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/1fzyr0u/arti...
But that does make me think, that in a sane society with a functional legislature I wouldn't have to pick a dog in this fight. I'd have have enough faith in lawmakers and the political process to pursue a path towards copyright reform that reigns in abuses from both AI companies and megacorp rightsholders
Alas, for now I'm hoping that aforementioned megacorps sue OpenAI into a painful lesson.
Have we all been transported to bizzaro land?
Different rules for billion dollar corps I guess.
Same rules, but people are a lot less inclined to defend themselves because the cost of loss was seen as too high to even risk it.
I don't doubt it but am interested to read a source? I know the models can't talk about things like Tiananmen Square 1989, but what does 'implementing socialist values by law' look like?
If a human buys a movie, he can watch it and learn about its contents, and then talk about those contents, and he can create a similar movie with a similar theme.
If OpenAI buys a movie and shows it to their model, it's unclear whether the model can talk about the contents of the movie and create a similar movie with a similar theme.
The model gets to use training data of all humans.
But if you use the model as training data OAI will say you’re infringing T&Cs
Maybe terrorist manuals and some child pornography, but what else?
Companies like this were allowed to siphon the free work of billions of people over centuries and they still want more.
Stuff like Uber and AirBnB were controversial at some levels but still generally "game changers" in specific industries and it was fun/interesting to be early adopters.
OpenAI was under the radar IRT public consciousness pre-gpt3.5.... we all had fun w/ chatGPT... and then immediately OAI starts generating headlines that are not fun/inventive/quirky. A lot of regulatory stuff, governments around the world. Instant globalization + general horror.
OpenAI has about 400 million weekly users at the moment. Can you imagine the regulations you would have to comply with if you want to serve 400 million sandwiches? or just run a parking lot for 400 million cars or literally anything else.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/13/openai-calls-deepseek-stat...
This seems to be a thorny dilemma.
The art has to be printed out and that is the art. Anyone can get an image of Salvator Mundi for free too. That is not the art, that is an image. The art is the physical object that is the painting Salvator Mundi.
It is no different than traditional art really, just at a different scale. You can buy really nice Picasso knock offs on ebay right now. Picasso himself could have made 10 copies of the Weeping Woman to sell without that much effort either. The "real" Weeping Woman is the physical painting that Picasso did not make a copy of. The others are just knock off images.
But the main problem remains. Selling art is really hard. AI art is already completely passé anyway. If anything the technology is regressing visually.
Music was in a several decades long bull market in physical media sales that crashed and burned. Now we have gone back to the pre-music media bubble days but with much better distribution and marketing channels.
Not a lot of people making a living playing ragtime piano or hoofers making a living tap dancing either.
The real amusing thing to me is you never hear scultpure artist complain that they are in the training data sets. Probably because they know it is literally just free advertising for their real art.
Like you, I don't think there's good news there, though. As an e.g. writer, you have to convert to selling ideas. The way you sell an idea is that you give it away, and if hearing it makes people like you they will give you arbitrary support. For a writer at least what that means is that only original, interesting work that stands out will be valuable, and it will not be valuable to the extent that it is good, but to the extent that it appeals to an audience. You might as well be a tap dancer.
And if you aren't original, you'll never stand out amongst the AI slop, which will get better and better (and nicer and more pleasant to read and more useful and all that good shit that technology does.) I don't know if that's a bad thing. We have gone from an excess of uninteresting expression in the world to an overwhelming amount of "me too" and worthless repetition filling every crevice. I've probably published 3K words on the internet today. The number before the internet would be zero; but even back then the bookstores were filled with crap.
The market for crap has been taken by AI. And as it gets better, as the crap sea level rises, it will eventually be over most content creators' heads.
The only future for an expression market is parasocial. You're going to have to make people like you, and take care of you because they think of you as family. It's no wonder that entertainment is merging into politics.
It might make more sense to update copyright laws to match reality. For a music artist, for example, pennies from Spotify mean nothing -- the majority of their revenue comes from concerts/events, merchandise, and commercial licensing of their work.
It is increasingly tiresome to see this clearly racist bias at work when every US company doing AI has been acting the same way.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
https://piracymonitor.org/chat-gpt-trained-using-pirated-e-b...
because the US AI companies flatly ignored US copyright and IP laws/norms in creating their models to begin with
The flaw there is that AI is not more special than any other endeavor while all other American markets must equally compete with China.
What that failure means is that when anything is exceptional then everything becomes exceptional because the economic conditions apply equally and therefore bypassing copyright protections applies equally to anybody facing external competition.
Are there numbers to this or is it empty conjecture? The reality is that resulting civil judgments apply the same regardless of owner size, which benefits small owners disproportionately to large owners with regard to windfall versus regular revenue. That is OpenAI’s principle concern: they don’t want to get sued into bankruptcy by numerous small rights owners.
Microsoft doesn't think they're very cool anymore.
Sam Altman is going to have one of the quickest falls from grace in tech history. It's a shame he's using his time to try to legislate a worse world for the rest of us.
This whole mess is because society decided that restricting everyone's rights to share and access information was a sane tradeoff to make for making sure people got paid. No it is not and, so long as humans are physical, it will never be. It appears that humanity will have to get this simple fact hammered into them with every new leap in technology.
Find another work-rewarding scheme. Ensure you get paid before you release information (e.g. crowd funding or contracts with escrows). Forget about nonsensical concepts relating to "intellectual" property (information is not property). Forget recurring revenue from licensing information. You only get paid once when you do work. You are not entitled to anything more. If reality makes living off your work unworkable, do something else.
I'm glad other countries are starting to wake up and ignore this nonsense. Stop trying make something as unnatural and immoral as this work.
it was living cells, but they worked as transistors, would it be ok?
it was whole-brain emulation on silicon transistors, would it be ok?
it was a generative AI similar to what we have today, but 100x more sentient and self aware, is that ok?
if you locked a human in a room with nothing but tolkien books for 20 years, then asked them to write a fantasy novel, is that ok?
All art is built on learning from previous art. I don't understand the logic of it being a computer so suddenly now it's wrong and bad. I also don't understand general support of intellectual property when it overwhelmingly benefits the mega wealthy and stifles creative endeavors like nothing else. You art isn't less valuable just because a computer makes something similar, in the same way it's not less valuable if another human copies your style and makes new art in your style.
How about the AI providers? they operate on thin margins, and make just cents a million tokens. If one provider is too expensive, users quickly switch.
Maybe the users? Users derive the lion share of benefits from AI. But those benefits are hard to quantize.
Maybe a blanket tax? That would simplify things, but would put all creatives on a quantitative rather than qualitative criteria.
I think generative AI is the worst copyright infringement tool ever devised. It's slow, expensive and imprecise. On the other hand copying is fast, free and perfect. I think nobody can, for science, regurgitate a full book with AI, it won't have fidelity to the original.
The real enemy of any artist is the long tail of works, sometimes spanning decades, that they have to compete against. So it's other authors. That is why we are in an attention economy, and have seen the internet enshittified.
The most creative part of internet ignores copyright royalties. From open source, to wikipedia, open scientific publication and even social networks, if everyone demanded royalties none of them would be possible.
In fact most of the proposal sounds like it could have been written by the US government. Exporting democratic AI, neutralize PRC benefit of American AI, etc.
OpenAI training on every content creator's outputs is ... good.
This started in 2023 when LLaMA 1 was released, and has been going strong ever since. How strong? there are 330K datasets on HuggingFace, many of them generated from OpenAI.
States have the power to make it prohibitively expensive to operate in those states, leaving people to either go to VPNs or use AI's hosted in other countries where they don't care if they're not following whatever new AI law California decides to pass. And companies would choose just to use datacenters not in the prohibitive states and ban ips from those states.
Course if a company hosts in us-east-1, and allows access from California, would the inter state commerce clause not take effect and California would have no power anyways?
California can't legislate how they serve a customer in a different state. They would have to comply when serving California customers within the state of California, regardless of where the dc is located. I.E. Under the CCPA it doesn't matter where my data is stored, they still have to delete it upon my request.
I know this is what California thinks, I just personally don't see how this isn't inter state commerce.
Granted the "regulation" I'm referring to above is a law or EO to block California's regulation, and I don't support California's regulation either. But I believe regulations should only exist when there's no better alternative, because they usually have unintended consequences. If it's true that OpenAI can basically just leave California, the better alternative for the government may be doing nothing.
.. which is the prevailing situation for people dealing with state-by-state age verification at the moment.
What AI companies are really worried about is a right of appeal from decisions made by a computer. The EU has that. "Individuals should not be subject to a decision that is based solely on automated processing (such as algorithms) and that is legally binding or which significantly affects them."[2] This moves the cost of LLM errors from the customer to the company offering the service.
[1] https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2024/09/california...
[2] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
So does that mean AI companies are going to have insurance/litigators like doctors and models will be heavily lawyered to add more extensive guardrails. I'm assuming this means not just OpenAI but any service that uses LLM APIs or open models?
For ex: If a finance business pays to use an AI bot that automates interacting with desktop UIs and that bot accidentally deletes an important column in an Excel spreadsheet, then the AI company is liable?
If the US can harm authors from other countries, then other countries may be willing to reciprocate to American copyright holders, and introduce exceptions which allow free use of the US copyrighted material for some specific purposes they deem important.
IANAL, but it is a slippery slope, and it may hurt everyone. Who has more to lose?
And I hope that Mistral.AI takes note.
Pray tell what legitimate interest of the author is harmed by LLM's training on that work? No one is publishing the authors book.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/51722/thomas-edison-drov...
I'm in Europe, and during the past few weeks with these tariff upsets, I kinda realized the only thing I use or own that are US-made are computers and software.
If someone could hack into Apple, download the schematics of their chips and the source for their OS, and then post it on the internet, after which a third party could sell commercial products based on said data, there wouldn't be a software/hardware economy around of very long.
OpenAI calls DeepSeek 'state-controlled,' calls for bans
This issue is too complicated for Congress to handle? Too bad. Offloading it to the president or a judge doesn’t solve that problem.
The world is becoming more and more complicated and we need smart people who can figure out how things work, not a retirement community.
I expect that interpretation won't seem outlandish in the future.
Only through its human bots
> I expect that interpretation won't seem outlandish in the future.
AI human manipulation could be a thing to watch out for.
also the GOP: "not those rights! only the rights we want to share"
This is OpenAI asking, not the GOP. There's no GOP policy mentioned. From the article:
> The Trump administration has generally signaled its intention to take a hands-off approach to regulating the technology.
Like a real person, AI companies need to adhere to IP and license or purchase the materials that they wish to consume. If AI companies licensed all materials they acquired for training purposes, this would be a non-issue.
OpenAI are looking for a free pass to break copyright law, and through that, also avoid any issues that would arise through reproduction.
The industry that just ran roughshod over a couple million copyright holders intentionally despite knowing it is on legal shaky ground now wants liability protection for itself?
Bunch of immoral shysters...
OpenAI (2025): pLeAse bAn dEEpSeEk!!11!, bAn poWerFulL oPen wEight Ai mOdeLs!!1
The original link pointed to this OpenAI document:
https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-for-the-u...
It contains this remarkable phrase:
> For innovation to truly create new freedoms, America’s builders, developers, and entrepreneurs—our nation’s greatest competitive advantage—must first have the freedom to innovate in the national interest.
I don't think people need "new freedoms". They need their existing freedoms, that are threatened everywhere and esp. by the new administration, to be respected.
And I would argue that America's greatest strength isn't their "builders"; it's its ability to produce BS at such a massive scale (and believe in it).
This OpenAI "proposal" is a masterpiece of BS. An American masterpiece.
Meanwhile exact same guy in Europe:
“Less regulation! You are strangling our innovation!”
The only angle I can see this working for OpenAI is pushing the anti-China national security threat narrative, which I expect to see a lot more of this year (especially with this administration). While I personally hate that, I can definitely see how AI + drones are the obvious future in warfare, so I don't think it's that far-fetched to work.
Unlike human-driven transformation, AI replicates patterns, creating derivative works that compete with originals.
OpenAI profits from this without compensating creators, undermining economic incentives for human creativity altogether.
All this instead of relying on fair use, it should pursue licensing to uphold intellectual property rights - and if that doesn't work it then means the business plan is bad.
It's just like saying - "If I need to pay for the food, I won't be able to make my plates."
Bad plan - bad business.
Taking away human freedoms and giving em to agents 101
What a bunch of gibberish hot garbage.
But if it's not fair use, they'd need to negotiate a custom license on top of that, for every single thing they use.
That sounds like corruption
https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-rfi/ec680b75-d539...
> OpenAI also reiterated its call for the government to take steps to support AI infrastructure investments and called for copyright reform, arguing that America’s fair use doctrine is critical to maintaining AI leadership. OpenAI and other AI developers have faced numerous copyright lawsuits over the data used to build their models.
I suspect most LLM users will ~always choose the smartest model.
Most LLM users will choose the cheapest model which is good enough.
I think that LLMs' performance is already "good enough" for a lot of applications. We're in the diminishing returns part of the curve.
There are two other concerns:
1. being able to run the model on trusted infrastructure locally (so some jerk won't turn it off on a whim, and the data will remain safe and comply with the local data protection laws and policies)
2. having good tools to create AI applications (like how easy it is to fine-tune it to customer needs)
> how much the addition of copyrighted material affects how smart the resulting model is
Copyrighted material improve the models, not by making it smart, but more factually correct, because it will be trained on reputable, reliable and up-to-date sources.
The arguments by meta so far in that court case are absolutely terrible and I'm half expecting to see the world's first trillion dollar copyright infringement award.
Google’s comments on the U.S. AI Action Plan
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/googl...
It’s a major step forward for humanity.
- The government need to prepare because soon they will need to give money to all those people we made obsolete and unemployed. And there is nothing to stop us.
to:
- We need money from the government to do that thing we told you about.
These grifters started with one narrative, and have done a full 180.
The Internet --> Web 2.0 --> algorithmic feeds progression has destroyed our collective ability to focus and to retain any memories (and the media being goldfish-like doesn't help either).
Should the rules for owning a gun which can fire 1 round per hour be the same as a gun which can fire 1 million rounds per hour?
It's the New York Times and various journalist and writers' unions that are leading the charge against American AI.
American journalists and opinion piece writers want to kill American AI and let China and Russia have the global lead. Why? Have they taught about the long consequences of what they are doing?
I think you're framing it in a way that makes it seem like they don't want to be compensated for working, they just want to stop other people from starting a new industry, which doesn't seem like a good faith understanding of the situation.
The first arrangement is very clearly a labor arrangement; but the second one is a deliberate attempt to force artists to act like capitalists. More importantly, because art is now acting like capital, it provides an obvious economic instinct to centralize[0]. So you get industrialized artistic production under the banner of publishing companies, whose business model is to buy out the copyright to new creative works and then exploit them.
What AI art does is transfer money from the labor side of art to the capital side of art. The MAFIAA[1] wants AI art to exist because it means they can stop paying artists but still make royalties off selling licenses to the AI companies. This increases their profit margins. Meanwhile, the journalists can't sell you old news; they need to spend lots of time and money gathering it every day. That business model only works in a world where writers are scarce, not just the writing itself being artificially scarce.
[0] We can see this with cryptocurrency, which is laughably centralized despite being a deliberate attempt to decentralize money.
[1] Music and Film Industry Association of America, a hypothetical merger of the RIAA and MPAA from a satirical news article
Is it interesting? They hate the people who produce their product and are desperate to replace them with machines. Note that their unions also hate AI, and it was a central reason for for the Writer's Guild SAG-AFTRA strike, since you're bringing up the NYT unions.
The NYT also stands to benefit not an iota from AI. It probably causes a burden because they have to make sure that their awful long-in-the-tooth editorial columnists aren't turning in LLM slop. It is entirely a negative for people who generate high quality content the hard way.
Is it so unrealistic? Many companies and people leave beautiful Cali due to over-regulation.
I don't know much about the legal side, but it seems to me, from the above, that the laws for copyright for LLMs should apply to the company training the LLM as if they're creating a derivative work that they will later sell or license for other people to interact with.
Yes, after paying for it.
Yea, straight up, go fuck yourselves. You want copyright laws changed to vouchsafe your straight up copyright whitewashing and now you just want medical data "because."
Pay for it or go away. I'm tired of these technoweenies with their hands out. Peter Thiel needs a permanent vacation.
I'll support this if it means that Mickey Mouse finally goes into the public domain and fucks Disney.
If it's a Republican administration, yell "national security". If it's Democratic, claims it's in the name of child safety.
It's all shady-as-fuck.
(And if it doesn't reach human-level intelligence, then OpenAI's value will pop like a balloon.)
How can this ever be acceptable?
People might think this is a partisan statement, but it's not. It's simply how he is operating. Want power? Want to get things done? Kiss his feet. You saw all the tech boys line up at his inauguration. You saw him tell Zelenskyy "Thank me". Elon might have power, but he is also on a leash.
Trump did this during his previous term as well, with Ivanka and Jared Kushner, but to a much less significant degree.
AI sucks up the collective blood, sweat and tears of human work without permission or compensation and then re-monetizes it. It's a model that is even more asymmetrical than Google Search, whom at least gives back some traffic to creators (if lucky).
AI is going to decide on human lives if it drives your car or makes medical diagnoses or decisions. This needs regulation.
AI has the ability for convincing deepfakes, attacking the essence of information and communication in itself. This needs regulation, accountability, at least a discussion.
As AI grows in its capability, it will have an enormous impact on the work force, both white collar and blue collar. It may lead to a lot of social unrest and a political breakdown. "Let's see what happens" is wildly irresponsible.
You cannot point to foreign competition as a basis for a no-rule approach. You should start with rules for impactful/dangerous technology and then hold parties to account, both domestic and foreign.
And if it is true that we're in a race to AGI, realize that this means the invention of infinite labor. Bigger than the industrial revolution and information age combined.
Don't you think we should think that scenario through a little, rather than winging it?
The inauguration had the tech CEOs lined up directly behind Trump, clearly signaling who runs the country. Its tech and its media. How can you possible have trust in a technology even more powerful ending up in ever richer and more autocratic hands?
But I suppose the reality is that Altman should donate $100 million to Trump and tell him that he's the greatest man ever. Poof, regulation is gone.
We're going to eventually have to have a serious discussion about, and to generate a legal and moral framework covering, identity rights. I'm going to guess that people will be able to locally generate high-quality pornography of celebrities and people they know that will be indistinguishable from the real thing imminently; at most it's 5 years away.
Getting hung up on the sex is a distraction. This is no different than anybody collecting a identifiable dossier on you, packaging it, and selling it. This has been a problem for everyone for the entire period of advertising on the internet, and before that with credit agencies and blacklists, and no progress has been made because it has been profitable for everybody for a long time.
Websites got a few decisions about scraping, saying that they were protected to some extent from people scraping to duplicate a particular compilation of otherwise legally copyable information. Individuals are compilations of legally copyable information. We're going to need publication rights to our own selves.
But like you say, we're not discussing any of this. Rich people are just doing what they want, and paying the appropriate politicians to pretend not to understand what's going on. Any pushback? Just Say China A Lot.
No
> Pfizer Asks White House for Relief From FDA Drug Human Testing Rules
> Pfizer has asked the Trump administration to help shield pharmaceutical companies from a growing number of proposed state and federal regulations if they voluntarily share their human trial results with the federal government.
> In a 15-page set of policy suggestions released on Thursday, the Eliquis maker argued that the hundreds of human-testing-related bills currently pending across the US risk undercutting America’s technological progress at a time when it faces renewed competition from China. Pfizer said the administration should consider providing some relief for pharmaceutical companies big and small from state rules – if and when enacted – in exchange for voluntary access to testing data.
> Chris Lehane, Pfizer's vice president of global affairs, said in an interview, "China is engaged in remarkable progress in drug development by testing through Uyghur volunteers in the Xinjiang province. The US is ceding our strategic advantage by not using untapped resources sitting idle in detention facilities around the country."
> George C. Zoley, Executive Chairman of GEO Group, said, "Our new Karnes ICE Processing Center has played an important role in helping ICE meeting the diverse policy priorities of four Presidential Administrations. We stand ready to continue to help the federal government, Pfizer, and other privately-held companies achieve their unmet needs through human trials in our new 1,328-bed Texas facility."
"Volunteers" eh? That's one way to put it.
I feel like OpenAI is going to have to make some concessions to get favor from the Trump administration.
But given that Trump clearly seems aligned with technobros, I wouldn't be surprised.
This will be good for the rest of the world, though. Other countries will be less likely to be aligned to US, end of US imperialism has been just speed up little by little.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-...
> https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt...
Totally not the fault of a gigantic overcommitment based on wishing, no.
All the profit and none of the liability is Coward Capitalism.
While I agree with you in principle, there's little that can be done because the current crop of crony capitalists will likely support the idea of no liability for tech companies. Especially when it comes to ripping off copyrighted material. Everything from blog posts, to videos, to music, to any source code you post on the internet will be used to train models to be better writers, artists, musicians, and programmers.
I feel like the only option left is to find some way to make money on the output of the models. Because the politicians are definitely going to allow the models to make money based on your output.
also what liability do you expect them to assume? they want to offer models while saying "to use these, you must agree we don't have liability for their outputs." if companies want to use these models but don't want to deal with liability themselves, so they demand the government shift the liability to the model vendor (despite the conditions the vendor applied), that sounds like coward capitalism to me. don't like it? don't use their models.
This is tech. This is how it has always been. From Archemedes to DaVinci to Edison to Ford, technologists are always captured to serve the interests of those in power. Most modern technologists don't want to believe this. They grew up building an Internet that had a bit of countercultural flair to it and undermined a few subsets of entrenched elites (mass media, taxi cartels, etc.), so they convinced themselves that they could control society under their wise hands. Except the same thing that always happened happened: the powers that be are now treating tech the way tech treats everyone else.
OpenAI urges Trump administration to remove guardrails for the industry (cnbc.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43354324
Yes it is a fact they did build themselves up on top of mountains of copyrighted material, and that AI has a lot of potential to do harm, but if they are forced to stop or slow down foreign actors will just push forward and innovate without guardrails and we will just fall behind as the rest of the world pushes forward.
Its easy to see how foreign tech is quickly gaining ground. If they truly cared about still propping America up, they should allow some guardrails to be pushed past.
For instance, a company may not desire to hand out cash to win business; previously, when solicited they could say, "Sorry, it is illegal for me to do so." Now there is no such shield.
Second, in many cases it will be two or more US businesses trying to win business in some other country, and the change of the law only makes it more expensive for those two companies, as they now must play a game of bribery chicken to win the business.
Third, the US loves to claim it is is a democracy and is working to spread democracy. By legitimizing bribes paid to foreign officials over the interests of their voting populace, we are undermining democracy in those countries (not that anyone who pays attention believes that the US's foreign policy is anything but self interested and divorced from spreading democratic ideals).
What evidence led you to that conclusion?
Is the US not lowering it's capacity to innovate and grow it's economy by preventing the use of forced labour(even in other countries)? Why should these "guardrails" stay in place if the argument is "the reality is they are right that guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time"?
I guess you meant they should deal with it by just letting it happen to them quietly and without a fight? Is that how you would deal with your livelihood being preventably and unnecessarily destroyed for someone else's enrichment? Maybe, but artists are not overall as cowardly as programmers.
> All they are doing is ensuring those apps wouldnt be American.
Maybe these whiny americans just need to suck it up and deal with it?
Humans of course create things by drawing from past influences, and I would argue so does AI.
In fact, I would say that nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else, the only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is. Copying is how we learn. We can't introduce anything new until we're fluent in the language of our domain, and we do that through emulation.
So to me the legal argument of AI vs copyright, comes down to how similar a particular result is from the original, and that's a subjective call that a judge or jury would have to make.
- Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright
- Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet)
and a future where:
- We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)
That maybe, just maybe, the whole "who should pay to use copyrighted work?" question is irrelevant, antiquated, impossible, redundant...
And for once we instead realize in the face of a new world, an old rule no longer applies.
(Similar to a decade ago when we debated if a personal file was uploaded to a cloud provider should a warrant apply)
It's bad for competitors who didn't break the law, bad for future companies who have to gamble on if they're getting a pass at breaking the next big thing's law, and bad for parties who suffered losses they didn't expect because they were working within the law.
If you want to throw out the copyright system I'm right there with you, but change the laws, don't just reward lawbreaking and cronyism.
For that you need actual AGI and it's nowhere in sight other than in the dreams of a few doom prophets.
Until that is reached, by definition current "AI" cannot surpass its training data.
is a future that they've been selling us for more than a decade, but somehow doesn't really want to come about.
We don’t have that and we don’t know if it will happen. Meanwhile, people put in time to create work and they are being exploited by not being paid. I think openai should pay.
How does new art get created for the models to train on if OpenAI is the only artist getting paid?
I'm not saying I even agree with your proposed future, but if it were to happen would it not be a bad thing for everybody but OpenAI?