> they took a lot of music and used that to create algorithms that are effective for reproducing real-world music using less data
That's redefining history. MP3 didn't evolve like this. There was a series of studies, experiments etc and it took many steps to get there.
MP3 was not created by dumping music somewhere to get back an algorithm.
> I think a reasonable route is that models shouldn't be copyrightable/patentable themselves
Why? Why can't they just pay. AI companies have the highest valuation and so have the most $$$ and yet they can't pay? This is the equivalent of the rich claiming they are poor and then stealing from the poor.
> MP3 was not created by dumping music somewhere to get back an algorithm.
This wasn't what I was trying to suggest, clearly I wasn't clear enough given the context, but my point was to give a very distant example where humans are using copyrighted works to test their algorithms as a starting point, as I later go on to say, I think the two cases are fundamentally different, but the point was to make the case that there are different types of "using copyrighted works to create tools", which is distinct from "learning".
> Why? Why can't they just pay. AI companies have the highest valuation and so have the most $$$ and yet they can't pay? This is the equivalent of the rich claiming they are poor and then stealing from the poor.
I don't think them paying solves the problem.
1) These are trained on such enormous amounts of data that is sourced unreliably, how are these companies going to negotiate with all of the rights holders?
2) How do you deal with the fact the original artists who previously sold rights to companies will now have their future work replaced in the market by these tools when they sold a specific work, not expecting that? Sure, the rights owners might make some money, but the artists end up getting nothing and suffering the impact of having their work devalued.
3) You then create a world where only giant megacorps who can afford to get the training rights can make models, they can then demand all work made with them (potentially necessary to compete in future markets) give them back the rights, creating a viscous cycle of rent-seeking where a few companies control the tools necessary to be a commercial artist.
Paying might, at best, help satisfy current rights holders, which is a fraction of the problems at hand, in my opinion. I think making models inherently public domain solves far more of them.
> 1) These are trained on such enormous amounts of data that is sourced unreliably, how are these companies going to negotiate with all of the rights holders?
i.e. the business was impossible? Then don't do it. That's like saying I can't do the exam reliably sir, so I cheated and you should accept.
> 2) How do you deal with the fact the original artists who previously sold rights to companies will now have their future work replaced
Charge differently / appropriately. This has already been done, e.g. there are different prices / licenses for once-off individual use, vs business vs unlimited use vs SaaS etc.
> 3) You then create a world where only giant megacorps who can afford to
Isn't this currently the case? Who can afford the GPUs? What difference does that make? These AI companies are already getting sky high valuations with the excuse of cost...
> I think making models inherently public domain solves far more of them.
How is that even enforceable? Companies just don't have to even announce there is a new model or the model they used and life progresses.
> i.e. the business was impossible? Then don't do it. That's like saying I can't do the exam reliably sir, so I cheated and you should accept.
Sure, I think that's also a potential option, like I say we need to ask what the benefit to society is and if it is worth the cost.
> Charge differently / appropriately. This has already been done, e.g. there are different prices / licenses for once-off individual use, vs business vs unlimited use vs SaaS etc.
If we are just bundling it into copyright, you can't retroactively set that up, people have already given away copyright licenses, and their work will then be sold/used to train and they can't change that.
> Isn't this currently the case? Who can afford the GPUs? What difference does that make? These AI companies are already getting sky high valuations with the excuse of cost...
Right, but currently they get to own the models. If we forced the models to be public domain, anyone could run inference with them, inference hardware isn't cheap, but it's not anywhere near the barrier paying the rights for all the data to train a model is.
> How is that even enforceable? Companies just don't have to even announce there is a new model or the model they used and life progresses.
Patents require a legal framework and co-operation and enforcement. Yeah, enforcing it isn't trivial but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If you want to have a product relying on an ML model, you have to submit your models to some public repository, if you don't, then the law can force you. Of course a company can claim their product isn't using a model or whatever, or try and mislead, but if that's illegal, no company is watertight, a solid kickback to whistleblowers you pull from the hefty fine when it's found out, etc... This is off the top of my head, obviously you'd apply more thought to it if you were implementing it.
> Business doesn't operate on the benefit of society. It's not a charity.
Which is why we have legislation to force them to act in given ways. I'm not suggesting companies should choose to do it, I'm saying we should pass laws to force them.
> They have? No they haven't. There are already ongoing law suits.
That was in the context of the hypothetical where training models is just considered a type of copying and handled by existing copyright law. You seem to be misunderstanding my points as a cohesive argument about the current state of the world: I was describing possible ways to handle legislating around machine learning models.
> How do you? Send the NSA and FBI to everyone's house? How do you know I have a model?
> Just like stopping drugs? Good luck.
I answered this in the rest of my comment? I don't believe the comparison to drugs is at all reasonable: it's much easier to manage something large companies who have to operate in the commercial space do than something people do on the street corner.
It appears you aren't really engaging with what I'm saying, but giving knee-jerk responses, so I don't think this is going anywhere.
To leave the country? That's what would happen. They can develop elsewhere and "license" back to the US as needed or even leave the US market completely. The US no longer has a 10-200x GDP compared to the rest of the world it once did. This notion needs to stop and to see the world has changed.
That's redefining history. MP3 didn't evolve like this. There was a series of studies, experiments etc and it took many steps to get there.
MP3 was not created by dumping music somewhere to get back an algorithm.
> I think a reasonable route is that models shouldn't be copyrightable/patentable themselves
Why? Why can't they just pay. AI companies have the highest valuation and so have the most $$$ and yet they can't pay? This is the equivalent of the rich claiming they are poor and then stealing from the poor.