War on Open Source AI Community?

News Article Source:

00:00 🚨 The potential impact of legal challenges on the open-source AI community
- Exploring the current legal proceedings that could affect the data sourcing for AI developments.
- Highlighting the vulnerability of smaller, community-driven AI initiatives lacking corporate legal defenses.
- Concerns over the monopolization of AI technologies by large companies through litigation and market control.
02:01 📜 Outdated copyright laws in the context of global digital culture
- Critique of the traditional copyright model which is seen as outdated amid contemporary global connectivity and cultural exchange.
- The issue of a single entity or person owning a creative idea in a world where multiple people can independently conceive similar ideas.
- Discussion of the historical collaboration among artists and cultural movements that contrasts sharply with current legal restrictions on creativity.
04:12 🌐 Future challenges in copyright and content creation in the AI era
- Predictions about AI's role in creating vast amounts of content and concepts beyond human capability.
- Legal and ethical considerations surrounding AI-created content, authorship, and originality.
- The potential for AI as a prolific 'meme generator', influencing daily cultural expressions and artistic creation.
06:09 🤔 Rethinking authorship and cultural value in the age of AI
- The need for a shift in how copyright and authorship are viewed in the digital and AI-driven age.
- Questions about the originality and ownership of ideas in a scenario where AI plays a significant role in creative processes.
- A call for redefining the roots of culture and creative expression, focusing more on collective processes rather than individual moments.

#### Join and Support me ####

[CarlWicker]

Thats not how copyright works, there is no worldwide copyright, There will always be Open Source.

[AlistairKarim]

The 'No-AI' people make the same mistake as musicians back in the day. They think that copyright will somehow protect and enrich them, and not their employers. It's the corporations and music labels that hold all the copyrights in the end.

[UnchartedWorlds]

Let it go underground! We'll do it anyways

[bgNinjashows]

This is like trying to copyright electricity, you can't put technology back in the box.

[lauracamellini]

And this is exactly why it DID hurt to see "copyleft" people rage against ai...

[CoconutPete]

Everyone should download backups of models and source while still available... it's almost guaranteed Big Tech will try to destroy open source alternatives

[tomrushpresents]

The process vs the moment. I really appreciate how you are having this conversation. They are things I am having internal discussions about too.

[大支爺]

Stable diffusion 3 still not willing to release its codes, while it is still using codes that was written from community.

[DronesClubMember]

So getting a big HDD to store our fav models and Lora along with backup of A1111 and ComfyUI is good idea?

[kullenberg]

I'm by no means a copyright expert, but my understanding is that it protects the specific expression of an idea and not the idea itself. The value of an illustration is after all not in the idea but in the execution, and that can hardly be boiled down to luck.

[tobiasmuller]

What is "the copyright" you're talking about? Did you read the one you're talking about? Could you point to the sources that stress that an idea of a single moment is bound to a specific person? Which paragraphs have to be redefined to cover better what creative work means or need to be redefined because of AI?

[tripleheadedmonkey]

We're at the crossroads now. We either end up with more of the same locked down closed platform service experience the internet has sadly become in general, or we transcend that and become something better.

[urgyenrigdzin]

3:20 I love your argument there. In fact, what's interesting is that most artists from Asian countries (real, professional, commercial, famous artisrs) either embrace AI or simply don't bother with it.
Not intending to offend anyone here, it's just my observation that those who make hooha about AI are American (specifically Hollywood) "artists".
Well, I'd love to see them doing the same thing to medical AI.
Although I'm not a lawyer, I suspect that legally speaking, those datasets used to train medical AI do owned by patients (all those patient's privacy etc) and I doubt if they were used with permission 😛

[glomerol]

Unsure this applies to FLOSS AI or that I understand this video correctly. Copyright-free/Public domain/Free and Copyleft/Wikipedia, etc., are already things along with p2p networking (maybe like SETI At Home?) for training/'compute' and augmenting AI and with FLOSS. The code is already open to look at, so there is no lawsuit needed is there? And plenty of volunteers are available to help in FLOSS AI's development. What am I missing?

[hotlineoperator]

Platforms fight over users, who gets the monopoly. The time for funding will come later when they invent things that prevent people from moving from one platform to another - such as the transfer of their own historical data. Hopefully, the competition for the development of features will continue for a long time and no one will have a monopoly on the platforms, on the other hand, the coming of standards and enabling the transfer of data is desirable.

[Paolo.Dalprato-AI]

I agree with you on the need to evolve the concept of copyright. In the article you share I only read a part, do you know what happened in the courtroom in May?

[Downsider]

The only concern which we should have, and I'm surprised nobody seems to be discussing this at large, is in the defence of those who's jobs have become "redundant" due to large companies training models off former employee's work, such as web design, concept design, anything to do with design. None of these industries are cheap to get into, and take up several years of study, and large amounts of money. Soon as capitalists discovered "AI" use for generation? What was mainly a community of nerds creating open source tools for personal use, and sharing with others, has become a business venture. Those employees should have rights to the work they've spent hours, weeks, months on, not the corporations to train models. Besides, since when do we defend corpos?

[I-Dophler]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:00 *🚨 The potential impact of legal challenges on the open-source AI community*
- Exploring the current legal proceedings that could affect the data sourcing for AI developments.
- Highlighting the vulnerability of smaller, community-driven AI initiatives lacking corporate legal defenses.
- Concerns over the monopolization of AI technologies by large companies through litigation and market control.
02:01 *📜 Outdated copyright laws in the context of global digital culture*
- Critique of the traditional copyright model which is seen as outdated amid contemporary global connectivity and cultural exchange.
- The issue of a single entity or person owning a creative idea in a world where multiple people can independently conceive similar ideas.
- Discussion of the historical collaboration among artists and cultural movements that contrasts sharply with current legal restrictions on creativity.
04:12 *🌐 Future challenges in copyright and content creation in the AI era*
- Predictions about AI's role in creating vast amounts of content and concepts beyond human capability.
- Legal and ethical considerations surrounding AI-created content, authorship, and originality.
- The potential for AI as a prolific 'meme generator', influencing daily cultural expressions and artistic creation.
06:09 *🤔 Rethinking authorship and cultural value in the age of AI*
- The need for a shift in how copyright and authorship are viewed in the digital and AI-driven age.
- Questions about the originality and ownership of ideas in a scenario where AI plays a significant role in creative processes.
- A call for redefining the roots of culture and creative expression, focusing more on collective processes rather than individual moments.

Made with HARPA AI

[Ghsty.]

I'm not sure I'd say that "companies are ripping off, or being "inspired", by what people have created" since it's basically the same argument that artists are using against us.

[Kilosrc]

Can't I use the same argument against human artists? If I watch a Helmut Newton documentary and I get to learn about the creative process he goes through while taking photographs, then I go out and try to incorporate that into my own style of photography and you end up seeing "a bit of Newton" in my photographs, is that considered copyright infringement?