It's hard to tell if what Eric Schmidt was saying was a joke, an observation, or a recommendation.
One interpretation from the context of the transcript seem to be "AI can make/steal stuff and manual intervention (lawyers) can clean those up later". Another interpretation from the context of Eric Schmidt being a savvy businessman is that people should go ahead and solve all the technical challenges first, and everything else can come later because if the technical problems aren't solved successfully, the other things won't matter. I can't tell if he is mostly responding to the room or not.
This whole transcript[1] is more than 10k words, everyone will probably find an interpretation from random snippets that matches their perceived reality.
Uber got its start by flouting taxi rules. By the time the backlash started uber/lyft were too popular for governments to shut down so instead most governments created an awkward different category for them, so there’s at least some regulation applying to them.
If Uber had tried to work thru the regulation they would have never gotten off the ground or have been as loved by users. Taxis in many ways suck, and that was their opening.
Speaking of which…Uber is a master of regulatory influence. When California threatened to classify their drivers as employees, they successfully passed a proposition (prop 22) with the California public that promised more benefits for drivers…but kept them as independent contractors.
No they got their start because the yellow cabs were late, never arrived, started their timer before I even got into the car, took me a long routes to my destination. It was waaaay worse with yellow cabs. And when I first heard of Uber, I immediately switched.
I may be in the minority, but I’m a happy Uber/Lyft customer.
Taxis only got that way because of the rules that created an artificial scarcity / monopoly on Taxi rides. Uber flouted those rules, and it was much better than a Taxi, so their lawyers cleaned up the mess later.
What about Google itself? Store content from billions of websites in your own index without permission and show snippets from those sites to your own users, making yourself into “the source” of all answers when, in reality, it’s all just scraped from other people’s sites? Imagine pitching that idea to copyright lawyers back in 1999.
Yes, and that was litigated and ruled in favor of Google, because search engines provide links back to the original content, so there’s a mutual benefit. Using copyrighted material for AI does not provide links back to the original sources, so that’s where it is not covered under the ruling.
Not really. Taxi medallions are required to let you pick up someone else that hails you on the street. It is not required for a drive scheduled elsewhere like over the phone or the Internet. They weren't breaking laws, at least in the US.
Most of the regulations applied to Uber were new regulations introduced after their ride to popularity, often crafted with the express purpose of curbing Lyft and Uber.
You're definitely misremembering history, then. Hailing is certainly a "category definer", but what Uber was doing in the beginning was definitely not kosher in many US jurisdictions.
Ordering on-demand in an app was seen by regulators as much more taxi-like than scheduling a black car for a particular date, time, and place.
Uber was originally called "Ubercab", and changed their name specifically to attempt to distance themselves from traditional taxi service.
> Ordering on-demand in an app was seen by regulators as much more taxi-like than scheduling a black car for a particular date, time, and place.
Regulators tried to reinterpret existing laws to placate an interest group. Most cities has explicit laws around this: responding to someone hailing on the street required a medallion. Scheduling a ride via the internet did not.
This is why they had to pass new laws to try and stamp out taxi's competition.
But is it really "scheduling" a ride if the target time is "right now"?
It sounds to me like what they cared about was the distinction between "now" and "plan for later", and the way this was actually implemented in the laws turned out to be based on inaccurate assumptions.
> But is it really "scheduling" a ride if the target time is "right now"?
The ride is usually at least a few minutes from the present time. And again, the medallions are only required to respond to people hailing on the street. This is why cities trying to obstruct Uber had to pass new laws, not just enforce existing ones.
> Not really. Taxi medallions are required to let you pick up someone else that hails you on the street. It is not required for a drive scheduled elsewhere like over the phone or the Internet. They weren't breaking laws, at least in the US.
Maybe not in the US, but Uber was (at one point) banned in multiple locations in (at least) Europe because they flagrantly ignoring existing laws.
In some locations, like Netherlands, Uber was fined and told it was illegal, but continued service anyway up until their offices were raided, then they finally shut down.
It's not specifically about technical problems. He's saying that you need to just go all in on getting traction and not constantly be worrying about things that aren't going to matter if you never get it. It's the same thing as people who just opine about how they'll handle the big server bills, or how they'll scale to a billion users, or how they'll deal with regulations, when they haven't gotten their first user yet.
Do you remember Napster? They went all in on getting traction, succeeded, then got crushed by the music industry. Ignoring the law only works if you are bankrolled. Don't try this at home, kids.
Napster is an amazing example. They are a massive success story.
Sean Parker is doing great. It worked out for him.
So the point stands. If you get serious traction, the worst that can happen is your current company goes under, years down the line, after you have cashed out and you then fail upwards into being a successful tech celebrity.
This is all a much better outcome than nobody caring about your product, as you "followed the rules", hampered yourself, and ended up with zero users.
> If you get serious traction, the worst that can happen is your current company goes under
Of course if you really piss off the wrong people, you'll get smeared and maybe even framed for more things than you actually did before being arrested.
Legal gray area. They could have waited years and years and tried to get laws passed to allow their business to function with a clean slate of legality, but bureaucrats would have never allowed it.
Kim Dotcom made the mistake of not knowing when to quit. Napster shut down when it got told to shut down. Megaupload hopped around hoping to outsmart the law after it was told to shut down, and the executive branch doesn't let that go.
This advice kind of feels like "Don't pay your taxes. Just go all in on enjoying your life and not constantly be worrying about things that aren't going to matter if you die. Worry about it later if the IRS goes after you."
You really should be preparing for the future and operating above board, even from day one.
Note that rich people (and at least one prominent ex-President, and I don't think he's the only one) actually do operate by that principle. They go on and enjoy their life, largely don't pay their taxes, and then hire an army of lawyers and accountants to clean up the mess when the IRS goes after them.
I was raised to play by the rules and do everything by the book, but sometimes I wonder if that's just something that people who have no intention of playing by the rules say to screw over us gullible people.
>Note that rich people (and at least one prominent ex-President, and I don't think he's the only one) actually do operate by that principle. They go on and enjoy their life, largely don't pay their taxes, and then hire an army of lawyers and accountants to clean up the mess when the IRS goes after them.
While many rich people do commit tax fraud, it's worth nothing it's usually not as straightforward as "largely don't pay their taxes". It's not like they get a bill from the IRS and just refuse to pay it. Instead, they use a combination of legally gray tactics to reduce their tax obligations. eg. for peter thiel, he put a bunch of paypal stock in a roth IRA pre-IPO, allowing him to avoid taxes on much of his exit. Was this legal? Was the valuation he used when he put the stock in the roth IRA correct or artificially low? You could argue either way, so you could plausibly do it while keeping a clean conscience. The same applies to AI startups. They argue what they're doing is covered under fair use, and there's plausible legal arguments/precedent supporting that. It's not like they're doing something obviously illegal like duplicating DVDs and selling them at a shady street stall.
Also it's unclear what "prominent ex-President" you're referring to, but the wikipedia article for donald trump only says his foundation was charged, not him personally.
You don’t have to pay income taxes until you record profit, at least, so that really is like what he is saying. The IRS is not going to think this is weird, many (most even) startups never get to the point of paying taxes, and non-profits by definition don’t.
Obviously I'm not talking specifically about corporate taxes, here. In fact the example was about personal taxes. It's a generality about the attitude of "Ignore the rules, do what you have to now, and worry about the consequences later."
I don’t understand how we went from talking about “companies not worrying about success problems until they have success” to talking about individuals where none of that applies and is just a bad analogy.
Another interpretation is that (1) copyright interests are over-protected (at least) in US law because publishing industries are very influential, and that this policy overweights their short-term profit motive and underweights other interests that might benefit from looser enforcement (as the Constitution puts it: "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts.")
And simultaneously, (2) if you can actually demonstrate such an interest (in particular: a profitable business that cannot exist when copyright law is fully enforced), the courts and publishers won't actually shut you down, but will settle for a cut of the new revenue you created.
If something is clearly illegal or immoral to you don't do it. This is more about if its ambiguous or you believe your companies goal is a good thing and it's unclear if you will get sued for it.
>If something is clearly illegal or immoral to you don't do it.
You're posting on a forum run by a group that asks applicants when they've skirted the law to get something done. Your use of the modifier "clearly" here is pointless. Remember; you've literally lived through companies funneling in investment dollars into things like Project Greyball, which was entirely intended to gaslight law enforcement/regulators.
Or who have regularly tried to financial engineer or corporately structure their way out of culpability long enough to successfully execute on pump-n-dumps. Or who birthed the entire sector of "totally not a bank/financial institution" that is the cryptocurrency space.
Schmidt oversaw lots of “stealing” at Google, from Google Books (Author’s Guild), to Image Search (e.g. Perfect10 etc, before even Getty), the French press .. all before Viacom vs Youtube and others.
He knows very well the spectrum of stealing and liability. In this talk he’s pounding his chest in front of young investors and executives to celebrate what he got away with and to inflate his brand.
Contrast though with TK, who through Greyballing (among other things) wanted to “steal” the taxi market and make himself and Uber above the law.
So Schmidt’s raw ambition is no joke. But historically his actions have been perhaps more conservative than those of others.
>Schmidt oversaw lots of “stealing” at Google, from Google Books (Author’s Guild), to Image Search (e.g. Perfect10 etc, before even Getty), the French press .. all before Viacom vs Youtube and others.
At least for Author’s Guild and Perfect10, google successfully argued fair use and therefore it wasn't really "stealing". I'm too lazy to research the other cases. Despite this, you're seemingly displeased at google's behavior despite it being ruled legal. What should have they done?
There's nothing ethical about calling violation of purchased IP protection "stealing" either. It's a set of laws by encumbents to protect monopolies. And you can trace a lot of US monopolies and lack of healthy competitive markets directly back to those laws.
For AI startups it is too early in the cycle for them to do that. The first lawsuit on copyright infringement only just made it to discovery last week!
In this context though, The favorable laws that they will "purchase" would of course be either a favorable court outcome saying that training on other people's data without permission is fair use (in at least some circumstances), or otherwise a new law that says that explicitly.
AI startups have a couple years left of runway before even the first lawsuit is settled, so that is more than enough time to get traction and takeover the market, given how useful AI is likely to be.
Given AI’s role in the new Cold War with China, I would imagine the fix is already in. The national security folks aren’t just going to let China leapfrog them in developing this technical capability.
It's Heisenberg's Joke. It's both a joke and not a joke. Whether it collapses into a joke when you open the box depends on whether you agree with the sentiment.
I don’t know if there are just too many kids around or if everyone has a short memory, but Eric Schmidt was in his heyday know. for awkwardly sticking his foot in it with tactless comments like this.
“Any VC backed startup can steal IP and hire lawyers to clean up the mess”
If you have money, you can usually buy influence and also buy your way out of a ‘mess’. Just make sure that those you steal from have less money/influence at their disposal than you.
Exactly. Uber was an illegal taxi service, and Airbnb was an illegal hotel service that skated on technicalities thanks to an an army of lawyers and influential cheerleaders on Capitol Hill and CNBC beating the drums of "innovation".
The playbook has been in operation for over a decade.
That claim is at best, speculative. According to wikipedia they won every case brought against them, so as far as the law is concerned they didn't do anything illegal.
>Taxi companies sued Uber in numerous American cities, alleging that Uber's policy of violating taxi regulations was a form of unfair competition or a violation of antitrust law.[80] Although some courts did find that Uber intentionally violated the taxi rules, Uber prevailed in every case, including the only case to proceed to trial.[81]
If you or I started a similar company, we'd be shut down. Apparently the difference between "violated the rules" and "illegal" is how many billions you have backstopping your efforts.
American laws have enough loopholes that a convicted felon running for the highest office in the land is a "legal gray area".
>If you or I started a similar company, we'd be shut down.
This is asserted without evidence or justification.
>Apparently the difference between "violated the rules" and "illegal" is how many billions you have backstopping your efforts.
Legality is not binary. It exists on a spectrum. What uber did was in a gray zone, because they technically weren't taxis in the sense that only did prearranged pickups (as opposed to picking up fares hailing from the street). Is what they're doing actually illegal? You could argue either way. If you got sued by the city and were poor, couldn't afford a lawyer to represent you and rebut the city's claim, or couldn't pay your bills while the ligation was ongoing, that would very well have been the end of line for you. Conversely, if you could afford a bunch high powered lawyers that can do a bunch of research and write persuasive arguments, you might have been able to get a decision in your favor. While there's a difference between being poor and rich, it's not exactly the same as "the difference between "violated the rules" and "illegal" is how many billions you have backstopping your efforts", because persuasive arguments only get you so far. It only helps you in marginal cases, and doesn't mean you can murder people in broad daylight and get away with it, which is what your statement implies.
"Uber developed a software tool called "Greyball" to avoid giving rides to known law enforcement officers in areas where its service was illegal such as in Portland, Oregon"
says Wikipedia about the time when Uber operated illegally.
It’s interesting to see so many supposedly ‘hackers’ take the state of Intellectual “Property” laws that are from a different era (and are “purchased” by old incumbents too by the way) as gospel and object to strategies to deal with them for the long term.
Schmidt is very pragmatic simply predicting something like that is inevitable and probably the right strategy is to build your AI thing and bet/try that something like that would happen.
I've skimmed the comments, but I didn't see any passionate advocacy for copyright laws. If there's rules we all need to comply with, it can be upsetting to see others proudly not do it and get away with it because they're rich.
That has little to do with whether the rules were sound in the first place. It's more about fairness. And I've found "hackers" to be nothing if not fair - in a "chaotic good" way perhaps.
The reality is that small companies also have advantages in not following the law in its strictest sense than big ones in some areas mainly because no one cares about them.
Ignoring that dimension, here's another possibility: it is very possible that the utilization of AI and the licensing structure that Schmidt predicts here will increase the total licensing revenue that copyright holder pockets in aggregate despite their resistance today. It could be a win-win in the end. Wouldn't that be more than fair?
The problem is people at large companies creating these AI models, wanting the freedom to copy artists’ works when using it, but these large companies also want to keep copyright protection intact, for their regular business activities. They want to eat the cake and have it too. And they are arguing for essentially eliminating copyright for their specific purpose and convenience, when copyright has virtually never been loosened for the public’s convenience, even when the exceptions the public asks for are often minor and laudable. If these companies were to argue that copyright should be eliminated because of this new technology, I might not object. But now that they come and ask… no, they pretend to already have, a copyright exception for their specific use, I will happily turn around and use their own copyright maximalist arguments against them.
I agree with your characterization. It's probable that they will have to weaken their existing positions and pivot to the new world of copyright. Nevertheless that is a good argument.
That argument wouldn't start with a dig against Google Books or Google Search which is a net positive for the consumer and the society and I believe the original author in most cases. The publisher is the annoyed party.
It's crazy to see the repercussions of the talk he gave at Stanford, even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel. I thought the talk was great. I remember in the talk he said something like this, but he was being really open about what normally happens in these types of companies. I think the problem is that he, as someone in a position of power, was too open about it?
> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel
Stanford is an ... interesting place, it seems. I read that if you filtered for Stanford in the Forbes 30 Under 30 lists, they were most notable for having been accused/charged/convicted of stealing/scamming more money than their companies have generated revenue, to a ratio of nearly 3:1.
I don't know exactly why, but I suspect it's because of the repercussions that started popping up in the news just after the release. The talk was given 1 month prior to the publication of the video, so it was already a little outdated
Of course, I thought that my comment didn't touch on the critical part about it. I just liked the talk he gave. Should I also criticize when saying 'It's great' so I can express myself in a perfectly balanced way between justice and what people think he said badly? I'm asking an honest question
that is a phrase often used by people who are appealing to an invisible sense of "us versus them", emphasizing that the crazy thing-person-event is "not us" ?
> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel
private conversations among the very powerful is exactly the topic.. so this seems a bit of a Freudian slip
> I thought the talk was great.
I am one of "us" so why so much upset from "them" ? Can we get some social mutual-assurance that "them" are so wrong, and "us" is OK (and continue to be wealthy) ?
> he was being really open about what normally happens in these types of companies
normal ! this is normal ! why are "them" so upset when this is obviously normal, right ?!
> I think the problem is that he, as someone in a position of power, was too open about it?
clearly we need to keep up the secret conversations among the wealthy and powerful ?
Sorry, mate. I'm really not immersed in the English-speaking world, so I don't exactly understand the use of 'crazy'. I just see this word being used and used it here. What I meant was that I think what he said was perfectly normal C-level talk, and that's it. I hope my words don't resonate badly
Really, I was just commenting something completely honest about what I thought.
The problem is exactly that it is "perfectly normal C-Level talk". It's a bit like having all of your legislators discussing acceptable combat attrition rates as balanced against territory annexation all-the-time.
If the most novel innovation your leaders can come up with is "lets do something illegal/immoral/unethical until we become TBTF/TBTBHTA(Too Big To Be Held To Account)", it's a sign you really have a leadership problem, period.
thank you for the reply and no bad feelings.. it is a vigorous and current topic.. lots of implications socially and technically.. Please note that individual artists and writers literally depend on legal sale of their works to live in any city. Those executives, investors and lawyers in the audience at Stanford with large capital assets are making decisions that change the markets in a real ways. Students (like you and me?) are in the middle and learning.. may this exchange contribute to that!
The irony is a bit dulled when you consider that Drive is a service that you pay for (beyond the free tier), while YouTube is a service where they pay you to host popular videos.
Another absurd and less covered part of the speech is this:
> If TikTok is banned, here's what I propose each and every one of you do.
> Say to your LLM the following.
> Make me a copy of TikTok, steal all the users, steal all the music, put my preferences in it, produce this program in the next 30 seconds, release it and in one hour, if it's not viral, do something different along the same lines.
> That's the command.
> Boom, boom, boom, boom.
He doesn't really think anything even similar to this would work, does he??
He’s describing agentic LLM tools which don’t exist in a usable state yet but also may not require full on AGI to create later on with the help of code/rules on top and from within. And he’s saying why this is useful beyond being able to do it without a workforce that costs a lot - because it’s fast enough for anyone large or small to iterate quickly with once it works, like the next step beyond continuous deployment to continuous development
Idk why he says it like ppl already do that today in detail lol
He's describing a completely absurd fantasy. No matter how amazing your agent's code generation capabilities are, you can't simply snap your fingers and acquire the userbase that makes social media sites notionally valuable, and even if you could the market would be so flooded with people creating the same kind of garbage that absolutely nothing would "go viral".
Occasionally a song by a new recording artist will go viral even when it's no better than the thousands of other songs released every week. Popularity in media and entertainment often comes down to timing and luck.
Even if there was an LLM or something else able to do this, you also need resources, you know? Compute, storage, bandwidth etc. If you're Google or Schmidt you can afford it, but most of us not really.
It's hard to tell, right? This is a guy who also thinks the biggest problem at Google is people working from home. You just pull on the curtain for a moment and the whole thing gives way, revealing mostly clueless people just going with the flow. If it was still en vogue he would be talking about "getting to blockchain one" instead of AI. Sort of like that moment Elon opened his mouth about software development; no wonder they are friends.
You have a choice when you start a company. You can be ethical or not. It may be easier to make money if you are not ethical. It all depends on your goal. For many people, the only guidepost is financial success. For others, making the world better is a higher goal.
That's absurd. It's also incredibly profitable to rob a bank or to dump chemicals in the river instead of properly cleaning them up, but that's not a signal the law is broken.
The average (successful) bank robber gets less than $5000 in exchange for a substantial risk of going to prison for 10-25 years. It does not actually pay if you think ahead enough to do the math.
Considering that it is solely a function of how influential, powerful, how much part of the aristocratic circle you are, or have bought them off that determines whether you are thrown in jail or are celebrated; by definition is is a clear signal that the law is broken.
Just because you can't rob a bank or pollute a river does not mean that the law is applied equally at all levels and, e.g., the government/Fed is stopped robbing our banks through inflation and debt, or the corporations they are beholden to are punished ro polluting and poisoning our bodies and environments.
You've missed the "if you have to ignore it to succeed" part of my comment.
You'll do fine without robbing a bank or dumping chemical waste (neither of which are profitable in practice now, as well). Meanwhile society is littered with so many small instances of copyright infringement (memes, which usually are not fair use; fan art; etc.) that it's common practice for rightsholders to look the other way - but it shouldn't have to be common practice, it should just be policy.
Also copyright infringement does not physically harm people.
> You've missed the "if you have to ignore it to succeed" part of my comment.
Breaking the law makes a lot of terrible business models instantly profitable.
Imagine I have a uranium refinement company. It is a colossal capital investment and not many companies do it. Law forbids me to sell weapons grade uranium for random people, but it just happens those very people are the ones who are willing to pay a lot of money for it as long as I don’t ask too many questions.
LOL nice. The scary thing is it's hard to tell if this is sarcasm on HN these days. Some days reading this site, I think I've found someone who genuinely believes we should end all regulation because it's more profitable without.
Plenty of people have made that argument for a long time. They make it to this very day - "if we have to pay a living wage (or comply with safety regulations, or give benefits, or....) we'll go out of business!"
according to some theory, the law is always broken in some ways, but the practice of a lawful society is to converge towards not-broken, over and over again. Is theory consistent with practice? well, ask yourself which governance, which language group, which implementors of law.. since they are composed of humans.
While we are at it with a thought exercise.. how are large tech companies with new sci-fi tech breaking laws at will for profit, so different than horse-lords or Roman legions taking what they will and "fixing the mess later" .. ?
Well, when certain users have behplden themselves and their creature comforts to the corporate teat, that is expected to happen. Somehow, I doubt most Youtubers actually have the chops to set up their own hosting/streaming operation, plus maintain relationships with advertisers who pay their bills.
Does it not make sense then, that when such people have their livelihood threatened by the Ur-Intetnet ethos, that they turn against it?
I don't condone or support it, but I can understand how the shift has happened.
Mass scraping the Internet and linking to different places was also legally questionable until lawyers hammered it out. Would the world be a better place if search engines had been preemptively ruled illegal?
As a regular joe, try to do something legally questionable against Oracle, and then "have the lawyers hammer it out". See how much of a good place the world is in this case.
The problem is this stuff is highly asymmetric. Things are always "hammered out" in their favor, because you cannot afford to be a party to the "hammering out".
Google torrent lawsuits. Tens of thousands of people have had their lives ruined due to torrent use.
Claiming that there's anything illegal about adblockers is a real stretch, although I can definitely believe that they will eventually be outlawed either by statute or through some torturous legal argument agreed to by corrupt judges.
> Tens of thousands of people have had their lives ruined due to torrent use.
That is a tiny fraction of the number of people who did it. There are companies that got destroyed due to lawsuits as well, I wouldn't say lawsuits are less of an issue for companies than people, significant lawsuits are very rare in either case.
> Claiming that there's anything illegal about adblockers is a real stretch
It is legally questionable, I didn't say it was illegal we were talking about questionable actions.
So in which sense was it "hammered out"? Since not many people got in trouble for it, is it now legal to torrent copyrighted content, and to block ads?
If you're claiming it's still legally questionable, then it was not "hammered out" at all, was it?
I can think up a few legal ideas off the top of head in regards to adblockers:
From a copyright point of view… adblockers make a derivative work so they should pay the content maker for those. Those are worth orders of magnitude more than the ad would have paid.
Or maybe unfair business practice. Their whole aim is deprive another business of income. Or how they shake down companies for money so the blocker becomes less effective on that site.
People did get in trouble for pirating content. That you don't know any of them personally is irrelevant. I don't personally know anyone who got radiation poisoning, so I suppose radiation is not toxic?
Anyway, you downloading torrents is in no way "hammering out a gray area". It's just you being a small fish and slipping under the radar. The area is just as gray as before. Try to do something significant with the pirated content, as the AI startups do, and you'll immediately get trouble.
> Try to do something significant with the pirated content, as the AI startups do, and you'll immediately get trouble.
No they won't. 80% of the people I meet at tech events either have an AI startup or are working at one. Basically all of them are doing legally questionable stuff, when it comes to copyright law.
Anyone who has ever trained a model, or finetuned a model, is likely using other people's data. This is universal. It is almost everyone.
And yet, despite this being a gray area, basically nobody is getting into trouble for this. We are all getting away with it. And there is only a singular lawsuit about this against like 4 companies and nobody else. (midjourney, runwayML, Stable diffusion, and deviant art)
So the point stands. Almost nobody is getting into trouble, despite this behavior being widespead everywhere, and if you don't do the same thing then you are going to fall behind and fail.
> Anyone who has ever trained a model, or finetuned a model, is likely using other people's data. This is universal. It is almost everyone.
Citation needed.
The whole reason there's no legal trouble is that it cannot be proved conclusively that they used copyrighted data for training.
"when the CTO of OpenAI is asked if Sora was trained on YouTube videos, she says “actually I’m not sure” and refuses to discuss all further questions about the training data". Why do you think she's denying the obvious?
Just look around at all the AI companies that are doing this, dude.
Its a lot of people.
So the point stands, a large number of people are doing this.
Meaning that, yes a lot of people are getting away with this, and only like 4 companies are being sued.
This means that the point about people immediately getting in trouble is wrong, given that a lot of people are doing this.
Can you directly address this point, instead of giving a 2 word response that doesn't really address the point, and instead tries to attack the argument on a technicality because I didn't include a 20 page research paper in my social media comment?
Honestly I'm having a really hard time arguing that regular joes are not on the same footing with megacorps as related to "legal gray areas". It's like asking me to prove the sky is blue. Whereas of course, anything you claim, is "obvious, just look around dude".
What's the claim here, that now torrenting is officially legal? People have been torrenting, there's no consequences, it's been hammered out, now it's a-ok?
The claim is that people use models like stable diffusion, right now. Stable Diffusion was trained on copyrighted data. Lots of AI companies use that. And yet, they are all getting away with it. Only 4 companies are being sued for that.
Also, the claim here is that there are a whole lot of AI companies that are trained on other people's data, that are released publicly on the internet, and they are often made by regular joes.
> now it's a-ok?
People do seem to be getting away with it, seeing as there are only 4 companies that are being sued for this stuff, even though people have been using stable diffusion for 2 years now.
Do you really think that people aren't using stable diffusion? Do you believe that people are not making mario pictures, or copyrighted images? Clearly they are.
And a lot of AI startups, and regular people, train their models on data that they don't own.
> It's like asking me to prove the sky is blue.
If it obviously true, then you'd find more than 4 companies being sued over this stuff. But thats not happening.
Like, did you know that you can just google AI art stuff right now? Any of those models that pop up, right now, was trained on copyrighted data.
Stable Diffusion is used by all sorts of AI companies. And that model was all trained on copyrighted data.
Do you just think that nobody is using stable diffusion? As in, is it completely made up? Nobody is using that?
Clearly people are.
> there's no consequences
Apparently there isn't consequences because only like 4 companies have been sued in 1 lawsuit over this AI stuff.
Most of the hammering out is giant corporations hammering each other, trying to forge a niche to more effectively extract rents.
The solution is minimal or no government intervention to create state-sponsored monopolies. When you do have those interventions, sometimes corporation A will win, sometimes corporation B will win, but the small scale individual will always lose.
I think the initial idea to make disparate knowledge available more easily is a great one. And as old as recorded knowledge.
So the idea of a search engine in itself is a great one imho. But the idea of an ad-display-engine is imho not so clear cut. Especially when it is a de facto monopoly.
Especially when the monopolist can go the route of active enshittification, making stuff harder to find just to increase ad revenue.
Just to name one example, where we might want to wait until we take a look at the scales and decide if it really is a net benefit to the world, what Google is doing.
The playbook of "Do something legally gray > raise funding & expand > pivot away from legally gray OR employ lawyers to make it not legally gray" is basically the standard playbook of startups, the examples are countless: AirBnb, YouTube, Spotify, Uber, OpenAI, etc, etc...
I'm sure it isn't always a bad idea, but struggling to come up with good examples for when the outcome from doing so have been more than just "shareholder value went up".
Airbnb, Spotify, YouTube and Uber wouldn't see shareholder value increase if people didn't find those services useful. The number doesn't just magically go up if you build something nobody wants.
Sure, but also, "shareholder value go up" just isn't very interesting or overall helpful to the world. It's helpful to the shareholders, sure, but beyond that?
It’s the ideology of disruption. As if this were an inherently good thing.
They could go the democratic route and raise awareness, create enough support within the constituency for their idea and have the democratic institutions adapt the respective laws.
Or they can decide that they are above such trivialities as the law and democratic process, move fast and break things and grab the fortune they feel entitled to have.
That’s the ideology behind this anti-democratic capitalist system.
Essentially he is arguing that you should try and figure out the licensing later. Because why pay licenses or lawyers if it doesn’t sell?
> So, in the example that I gave of the TikTok competitor — and by the way, I was not arguing that you should illegally steal everybody’s music — what you would do if you’re a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, which hopefully all of you will be, is if it took off, then you’d hire a whole bunch of lawyers to go clean the mess up, right? But if nobody uses your product, it doesn’t matter that you stole all the content.
He seems to realize that people may take issue with this approach.
Are you suspecting your partner of cheating or having an extramarital affair? I’ll advice you to get proof first before confronting him/her. As that could result in unnecessary confusion in your relationship or marriage. it’s always advisable to consult a professional hacker to help you get concrete evidence by discreetly getting access to their phone or computer. he has forked for me a couple of times and he never disappoints. he provides Accurate results and can be trusted for 100% privacy and untraceable.
Contact him via hackremotespy@gmail.com
This isn’t new is it? Every startup in the last decade plus existed to slurp user data one way or another. User data accumulation is the single most popular value proposition for startups and what drove funding. In that sense AI is not new, it super charges everything including user data aggregation. It will be surprising only if this is a new trend.
Lawyers are who rich people and companies use when they did wrong in order to make that wrong somehow acceptable (for them). There is sometimes accountability, if a sort. It is rarely the form of accountability that mere mortals receive.
Let's not pretend: we're not equal under the law. We should be but we're not.
That's not a nice way to say it - but it's true that startups don't have time or money to go through detailed legal clearances. That's for medium size companies with incumbent advantage, cash, and plenty to lose in a lawsuit.
It's both a liability and an advantage for startups.
You seem to be confused about the legal context. What he described are only potential civil law violations, not criminal. It's a completely different thing. Civil law has a lot of gray areas, especially around novel IP issues.
Yeah, also what GP doesn't get is that you can do everything right and with the best intentions, get all the clearances in the world, and still get sued, and still lose. These decisions are about risk preference, and the risk tolerance at a startup is by nature different from that at an established company.
I get that the world isn’t fair. And that you can get fucked over by someone with deeper pockets.
But that doesn’t resolve anyone from the decision and responsibility to honor the societal rules (or use democratic means to change them) or to ignore the law and hope to become to big to fail.
In the latter case, I see those as detractors from the overall good.
A typical specimen - no wonder he is a darling of MIC. This guy is the creepiest thing out of old Sun Microsystems. Must be one of those "bozos" Andy,Bill et al worried about in re to hiring ..
He's got a lot of opinions. At the very least, Ilya Sutskever's story is evidence that there are engineers and researchers at Google who want to win, but aren't allowed to.
The reason we have copyright laws is that sufficient people with power believe that the world is better with them than without them. Same with fair use exceptions.
If an AI agent becomes just massively useful, and then a judge says that it's impossible to run it profitably with the current interpretation of copyright law, the agents won't go away: Copyright will change to make the agents legal.
It really wasn't very different with copyright's evolution as the web developed: There are theoretical copyright regimes that are much harder than what we have, but basically kill the legal internet. But the damage to existing internet services was just unacceptable, including to users.
Another component here is that, even if nothing useful comes out of this AI boom, none of the principles of any of the companies expect to be held personally responsible for the decisions they take.
The statutory penalties in copyright law are large and ruinous for small-time violators. People have had their financial security and lives ruined by bittorrent lawsuits, for instance. Applied consistently these damages would run into the hundreds of billions for folks like Altman. But Altman and all of his cohort including Schmidt do not expect them to be applied consistently.
Notably we got this far on the GPL which we are now burning to the ground in pull up the ladder behind us fashion. It seems to be taking people a while to notice that open source is moribund.
That the blow has been dealt largely by Microsoft (courtesy of GitHub and OpenAI) may explain the delayed recognition of this intellectual catastrophe.
Isn’t he describing what big companies can do? They can copy startups using their giant cash reserves and use lawyers and frivolous patents to make it difficult to challenge them.
I think Youtube is a better example than AI because AI is arguably transformative, while early Youtube had much more blatant copyright violations.
It's too risky for established players to do this because they'll be sued immediately. A small player can fly under the radar for long enough to see if the idea has legs. If it does, it'll be worth it for rights holders to negotiate.
It's not even a new strategy just made easier using AI.
I a ton of "move fast break things" startups include "laws", "ethics" into the "things they break" and sadly often enough "people and peoples livelihood", too.
I mean which large successful SV startup in recent decades hasn't been involved in both legal and ethical controversies often with them being clearly in on the wrong side but got away with it anyway.
It might sound unpleasant but if law makers don't move proactively this is pretty much what will happen.
So he wants to tell us to stop paying for our streaming services and games? As we can acquire them via shady sources and claim that we wanted to train an AI model, but haven't had success yet.
This isn't a gaff he's just entering his older man boss talk stage of life and more open about truths and it's great keep it up Eric you'll have a legendary brand.
this is why libertarians want as little state as possible, because states are the only actors that would actually prevent you from doing these kinds of things and get away with it, it's absolutely infuriating
It depends on the framing. “Stealing” content that someone else created is universally derided. Slurping up the internet and distributing it to billions of users is an economic model.
One interpretation from the context of the transcript seem to be "AI can make/steal stuff and manual intervention (lawyers) can clean those up later". Another interpretation from the context of Eric Schmidt being a savvy businessman is that people should go ahead and solve all the technical challenges first, and everything else can come later because if the technical problems aren't solved successfully, the other things won't matter. I can't tell if he is mostly responding to the room or not.
This whole transcript[1] is more than 10k words, everyone will probably find an interpretation from random snippets that matches their perceived reality.
[1] https://github.com/ociubotaru/transcripts/blob/main/Stanford...