Most experts agree that tech companies should pay creators whose work is used to train artificial intelligence. Deciding on the right number is the hard part.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
What about people who use any of the Meta platforms, like Instagram. Their shared content is automatically opted in for AI training. Most are unaware and finding the opt-out links in their "privacy" labyrinth is daunting for even experienced internet users. Shouldn't they be paid?
They should, and TOS being utterly terrible adhesion contracts has been controversial for years now — but nobody really knows what to do about that either.
Arguably they set up that way for purposes like this — making it artificially difficult to opt out of having anything used for profit.
Given that libraries are on the hook for electronic copies of books- for patrons to borrow - AI/ML should be paying authors for the data scrape and a monthly service-usage or royalty fee ever-after.
What's complicated is the details. For example, in the first model, set the exact percentage (and on what basis) and above all define the income from the AI model - bearing in mind that different models are open source.
• revenue sharing
• per content
• subscription-based
Offers being more publicized by companies, as a way of saying “LOOK! We’re listening! We’re trying to find solutions to this issue.” Instead of … nothing.
3. Good luck selling Big Tech on UBI. They've all had the neo-reactionary/neo-feudal Yarvin technocracy koolaid. Growth is limited by UBI, and tech would die without growth prioritization. Similar strike against nonprofit structure.
Because that would look like a joke. If Meta says tomorrow they're doing revenue sharing from their AI model, it means sharing zero. If OpenAI says, "Okay, I'll give back 3% of my revenue," that amounts to $111 million for all content creators worldwide — or 0,54 $ per person per year.
Per content. It's simple: either it brings in as little as revenue sharing, or paid data will be removed from training datasets (knowing that the only ones who know what was actually used are the trainers of the AI model...). Internet is vast enough (and oversaturated with machine content).
Let's ask Zuck if he did use all those stolen copies of books to help create HIS AI, and what it would have cost him if he had to have 'rights' to do so. How much did those creators / authors lose? Can someone math that problem out for us?
He originally stole the idea; his programs have been hacked and personal information stolen, those who purchased said stolen data then paid Zuck to run ads on his compromised "social media sites"... Ever notice there was never a payment to FB / IG users for stolen data?
Yep. And ever since he's been really upset when anywhere else tries to use "his" ideas, despite the fact I'm fairly sure he's never had an original one of those in his life.
The fact that after taking his "manly" fighting classes he wanted to fight Musk; then his comment that he needs more masculinity in his office / company -- WTF? Is he following Carlson and radiating his testes? Is it too much radiation? :)
Musk's been down the weird bro-cap rabbit hole for a while. He likes Curtis Yarvin's idea of the tech billionaire as a kinda feudal lord, and 100% Zuck gives off big mall ninja vibes.
Zuck did himself more favors not being the face of his company. He's...a special one.
Why do you think they support Musk, he'll stop regulating & $$ for creators.
WE'RE HERE FOR THE RUMBLE.
It's a time for fierce compassion. Be fierce, do an activity everyday. It's self care. Be the rain, the howling wind, and the mountainous wave. Be the storm. Pass it on.
Comments
full market value + damages / algorithmic use, lifetime of the service.
Work was knowingly and wrongfully obtained for the end of making a profit.
There's precedent out the ass in IP law for that.
No half-measures, no negotiation, no mercy.
Artists need negotiating ability in such an arrangement — just like in the film and music industries.
Give these lazy fucks an inch, they'll take 10 miles.
Arguably they set up that way for purposes like this — making it artificially difficult to opt out of having anything used for profit.
It’s not really that hard.
• revenue sharing
• per content
• subscription-based
Offers being more publicized by companies, as a way of saying “LOOK! We’re listening! We’re trying to find solutions to this issue.” Instead of … nothing.
They want to get around having to back-pay everybody for it, which will be time and money-consuming — which, tbh, it needs to be.
2. They're still making money.
3. Good luck selling Big Tech on UBI. They've all had the neo-reactionary/neo-feudal Yarvin technocracy koolaid. Growth is limited by UBI, and tech would die without growth prioritization. Similar strike against nonprofit structure.
Zuck did himself more favors not being the face of his company. He's...a special one.
WE'RE HERE FOR THE RUMBLE.
It's a time for fierce compassion. Be fierce, do an activity everyday. It's self care. Be the rain, the howling wind, and the mountainous wave. Be the storm. Pass it on.