Good to see publishers continue to make fools out of themselves instead of adapting to the new paradigms AI brings. I can't wait to see these pathetic relics of the past die out and make space for modern, open modes of information dissemination and monetization.
Not necessarily supporting big publishers, but why someone cannot prevent other mechanisms (aI being one) to extract their content for free? BTW, modern does not necessarily mean it is the correct thing to do.
When you read a book, have you violated the author's IP right by retaining the content in your brain and possibly discussing it with others without the publisher's consent?
Similarly, when I use a local LLM as an extension to my brain by having it process my library using RAG for quick searches and Q&As at a personal level, am I violating it?
Similarly, when my library or university uses it for educational purposes (which literally falls under fair use in most countries where IP law is not a joke)?
And by extension, if a private entity does it with an aim of creating an intelligent public chatbot, as long as it does not monetize by reproducing the author's original content verbatim?
You cannot blurt out such random appeals like asking courts to criminalize training data. Not only is it unfathomably stupid, it is also impossible to enforce. All you'll be doing is cripple your local technological innovation and hand over the edge in something as critical as AI to competing countries in a platter.
> When you read a book, have you violated the author's IP right by retaining the content in your brain and possibly discussing it with others without the publisher's consent?
When you write this on your new book it it called citation and there are some rules that you should follow so that you are not against the law.
Why are a lot of US companies trying to avoid the law lately ? (Uber, AirBNB, OpenAI)
> Why are a lot of US companies trying to avoid the law lately ? (Uber, AirBNB, OpenAI)
Evading regulation is profitable. It's even better when your competitors are carefully regulated.
It's part of the business strategy of "regulatory entrepreneurship". Sometimes they can get away with it for a long time, and sometimes they can even change the law.
You buy books, And you quote the book and also give credit to the author if you use the presentation in the book in your publication.
It does not make it automatically right not to do anything these things if you just grab the other people's creation for N times and combining the N results to "form" a new one with some linear algebra procedure, particularly when you also use such synthetic output for a profit. (which is what OpenAI and other companies do).
Facts about a book have never been copyrightable, for instance the odds of one word following another.
Facts in a book like a cook book recipe are also not generally copyrightable either. By convention we try not to rip them off but it does not come from copyright.
This is completely incorrect. Just as the other comment says, ideas are not copyrightable, only their expression is. Your comment shows a very fundamental lack of understanding of the systems in place.
Until AI can somehow exist in physical space, it is incapable of doing journalism, so you are cheering for the death of journalism with no replacement. That seems like a bad outcome.
That implies journalism isn't already dead, which is hilarious considering there exists such a fresh and recent example of their (lack of) integrity and (in)competence - the 2024 US Presidential election.
.. and the mainstream coverage of almost everything in the past half decade. There is no journalism anymore, there is only click and view farming.
ah, yes, I can't wait for heaps and heaps of novels with the same story structure churned out by Amazon while actual story writing becomes a niche because authors can't make a living doing it anymore
Self publishing has been viable and an arguably better option for more than a decade. For works of quality, that is.
And story writing has literally always been a niche trade, since the dawn of time. A very minuscule fraction of those who do it make it big, and even they start only as hobbyists while having another stable day job.
While I agree with you, I think that having a market wherein AI-generated works are the only works that make money will throw the baby out with the bath water.
Most authors today make _almost_ no money. Why would someone who wants to write a book invest months into doing so when they are _guaranteed_ to make no money? Why would anyone go into writing at all in a world where almost all publicized works are created with AI?
How many writers do you know who have stopped writing because of generative AI?
Have you ever considered that the entire premise of generative AI "replacing" creatives is misguided and baseless, and that just because it "can", doesn't mean it will? The most it has done to that end is cut off the top lines of corpo stock image and clip art creators. Even where writers use it to create content and reduce their work, it hasn't replaced them altogether.
Depending on who you’ve asked we crossed that line sometime between now and the invention of the mass market paperback. Fantasy fans have been decrying the onslaught of “(A|The) $noun (and the $adjective)? of $noun2 (and $noun3)?” books since the Harry Potter / Game of Thrones double whammy.
