On: Why do modern pop songs have so many credited writ...

[echelon]

Maybe this is how AI will work. Every contributor to the data set gets micropennies per inference century (a reasonable measure).

Of course future industrial foundational models will be bought and paid for (and royalty free) for the companies that assemble them.

[bombolo → echelon]

The entire point of AI currently is to NOT remunerate.

[solarmist → bombolo]

Sure, but once it becomes commercially useful in creative works that will likely change.

[delecti → solarmist]

I suspect the mechanism of that will be that Disney lawyers and/or lobbyists will start throwing their weight around once AI trained on Disney media is making money for someone other than Disney.

[clouddrover → delecti]

Getty Images is suing Stability AI for copyright infringement:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-...

It's a bit hard to argue against. Stable Diffusion was trained on Getty's images and it does reproduce them, watermark included.

Getty Images will win the case.

[fsckboy → clouddrover]

Getty would still need to prove actual harm, like from use of those images.

[Gigachad → delecti]

Disney IP is still safe. The tech can generate new content but it still isn’t legal to distribute.

[echelon → Gigachad]

We don't know that yet.

[Gigachad → echelon]

Sure we do, AI changes nothing. I could have made the same content manually and it still wouldn't be legal because of the IP ownership on the characters.

[Gigachad → solarmist]

When have we ever decided to compensate people who were automated away?

[fsckboy → Gigachad]

the point is the opposite, the AI cannot receive royalties because it is not entitled to copyright its work; unless it's changed, there will be no royalties for anybody including SkyNet

[dragonwriter → solarmist]

> Sure, but once it becomes commercially useful in creative works

It probably already is; the controversies make it likely people aren’t going to be overly forthcoming about their use of it, though.