[Joel_Mckay]

Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place.

Without a constant stream of stolen training data, the "AI" piracy bleed-through and isomorphic plagiarism business model is unsustainable.

We look forward to liquidating the GPU data-centers at a heavy discount. =3

[locknitpicker]

> Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place.

I'm skeptical of this line of reasoning. Major content providers have no problem with copyright, even when content is completely produced by anonymous contributors. Is this supposed to become an issue when you eliminate some anonymous contributors?

[Joel_Mckay]

>Major content providers have no problem with copyright

Besides getting sued for piracy, settling out-of-court with Disney, and or externalizing DMCA/RIAA take-down liabilities on users.

A human may transfer rights or "license" to another party in many circumstances, but may not re-sell a codified Coca-Cola logo trademark out of convenience.

All levels of the US courts concluded an "AI" can't transfer nor actually create content rights. Most WIPO members also seemed to follow the same consensus.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-selfi...

There was a similar issue with folks selling marginally pitch-shifted audio assets on the Unity and Web stores. Note, they didn't have the original legal right to license this content, and customers would get their content flagged eventually.

Some kids are cheeky pirating Sony and BBC libraries... exploiting peoples assumption buying an old CD set somehow magically gives the holder broadcast or game distribution rights.

Keep being skeptical, as it will keep you in business. =3

[yorwba]

Not owning the rights to some content and somebody else owning those rights are not the same thing. If someone else owns the copyright and you redistribute their stuff without permission, they have grounds to sue you. If nobody owns the copyright, because it expired long ago or because it came into being without human creative input, you can sell it just fine. So can everyone else, of course. Now, if you put your own stuff on top, that you own the copyright to, those other people can no longer redistribute it without your permission, but you can. So there's hardly any risk in using uncopyrightable background art.

[Joel_Mckay]

Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (it demonstrably can't even on a CEO live stream.) Most models will happily spew any statistically salient trademark, copyrighted and or patented code/music/images/video. Note too, GPL/LGPL is a contaminating license, so legal submarines will surface sooner or later if injected into closed-source projects.

The "how" it happens part is just legally irrelevant "[piracy] with extra steps", but if you are interested in details see below. =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-swift-ai-voice-likeness-...

Here is a simplified explanation of how vector search is done in many models:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDdKiQNw80c

And a more detailed toy implementation to learn how to build your own:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE3FSIk46g

[locknitpicker]

> Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (...)

Your comment makes no sense. The whole concept of "piracy" is meaningless when applied to LLMs, unless you go way out of your way to prompt models to output specific works verbatim.

Also, you do not "pirate" Harry Potter if you prompt a model to generate a story that directly or indirectly involves Harry Potter in any way. Like always. You can argue trademark violations or copyright violations if someone tries to use said work for commercial purposes, but LLMs are orthogonal concepts.

Just because Photoshop allows you to hack together variants of the coca-cola logo that does not mean Adobe is liable for trademarks or copyright violations.

[Joel_Mckay]

>Your comment makes no sense.

LLM bot poisoning discourse is against YC site usage policy.

>you do not "pirate" Harry Potter

True, but firms broke the law acquiring the content, and copyright violation occurs if the output bears similarity to existing works. The cited lawyers analysis explains how violating likeness applies to everyone now regardless of notoriety.

Again, the black-box argument for washing ownership rights is a fallacy, and the links covers how LLM are built. There have already been several dozen precedent cases showing LLM output is mostly weakly obfuscated intellectual property.

Notably, the training data also includes other LLM users markdown data.

>Photoshop allows you to hack together variants of the coca-cola logo

Unless it broke the law to acquire training data (the unauthorized logo is encoded in the model), and generated statistically salient works from generic prompts. For example, "Name a cartoon mouse" will usually output Disney Mickey Mouse trademarks, rather than Mighty Mouse.

LLM are quite good at content search, but are a confirmed liability. =3