Thousands of Authors Urge AI Companies To Stop Using Work Without Permission (npr.org) 118
Thousands of writers including Nora Roberts, Viet Thanh Nguyen, Michael Chabon and Margaret Atwood have signed a letter asking artificial intelligence companies like OpenAI and Meta to stop using their work without permission or compensation. From a report: It's the latest in a volley of counter-offensives the literary world has launched in recent weeks against AI. But protecting writers from the negative impacts of these technologies is not an easy proposition. According to a forthcoming report from The Authors Guild, the median income for a full-time writer last year was $23,000. And writers' incomes declined by 42% between 2009 and 2019. The advent of text-based generative AI applications like GPT-4 and Bard, that scrape the Web for authors' content without permission or compensation and then use it to produce new content in response to users' prompts, is giving writers across the country even more cause for worry.
"There's no urgent need for AI to write a novel," said Alexander Chee, the bestselling author of novels like Edinburgh and The Queen of the Night. "The only people who might need that are the people who object to paying writers what they're worth." Chee is among the nearly 8,000 authors who just signed a letter addressed to the leaders of six AI companies including OpenAI, Alphabet and Meta. "It says it's not fair to use our stuff in your AI without permission or payment," said Mary Rasenberger, CEO of The Author's Guild. The non-profit writers' advocacy organization created the letter, and sent it out to the AI companies on Monday. "So please start compensating us and talking to us."
"There's no urgent need for AI to write a novel," said Alexander Chee, the bestselling author of novels like Edinburgh and The Queen of the Night. "The only people who might need that are the people who object to paying writers what they're worth." Chee is among the nearly 8,000 authors who just signed a letter addressed to the leaders of six AI companies including OpenAI, Alphabet and Meta. "It says it's not fair to use our stuff in your AI without permission or payment," said Mary Rasenberger, CEO of The Author's Guild. The non-profit writers' advocacy organization created the letter, and sent it out to the AI companies on Monday. "So please start compensating us and talking to us."
sue them and demand source code in court! (Score:2)
sue them and demand source code in court!
Re:sue them and demand source code in court! (Score:5, Interesting)
This'll be just like how song royalties work with Spotify. Authors will get nothing and they'll like it. We've pretty much given corporations absolute power while we argued over petty moral panics and culture war distractions.
The one they need to fear is Reddit (Score:2)
Reddit (the corporation) owns the rights to all of those posts and comments used as training data. Reddit has a ton of money to file a lawsuit, and can very likely get a massive war chest from its VCs who could see ripping the guts out of OpenAI, Google, etc. as a very interesting way to make Reddit massively profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about authors (Score:2)
This isn't about Reddit wanting a payday for their user's posts. This is about individual authors whose work was used to train LLMs wanting payment. They're not going to get any. The courts will side with whoever has the most cash and it sure ain't them.
They might not be legally entitled to compensation (Score:3)
I'd like to know how ChatGPT, etc. even got ahold of their works because I am not aware of any legal site where this data could be scraped, and I doubt these companies would be stupid enough to break DRM on commercial ebook products, rip the content and use it as the basis of a commercial product.
With these authors, I feel like there is some info we are not getting about precisely how the AI comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, asshole. If it's not in a library, reading a book without paying for it, while it's under copyright, is theft, and copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The case would be incredibly difficult though. Any human author is to some degree inspired by what they've read and that makes it particularly difficult to argue that an LMM is much different than they are. Most human created works aren't terribly original, but humans seem to prefer variations on the same small set of th
Re: (Score:2)
That's great to hear for the cause of robot rights! [wikipedia.org]
We've already got corporate personhood [wikipedia.org], soon we'll have fetal personhood, animals are slowly gaining rights normally reserved for humans [wikipedia.org], and then AI bots are just the next logical step!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
How is this different? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Interesting)
The AI is using known, predetermined algorithms to harvest the content and regurgitate it in a predictable format, and is being fed copywrited source data illegally by handlers who are essentially stealing said source data. Artists who do the same thing also get sued for plagiarism. The only difference is the AI can put enough extra steps in the process that it's less obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a lie they are telling you to add a veil of mystery, and if you ask the AI the right things you can get predictable results, which proves it to be a lie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
" a person reading a book and getting inspired to write some stuff is no different than AI reading a book and getting inspired to write some crap"
A person reading a book and producing exact copies of the contents of that book is a plagiarist.
An AI reading a book and producing exact copies of the contents of that book is a...
Re: (Score:2)
An AI reading a book and producing exact copies of the contents of that book is a...
That isn't what is happening. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Predictable results are not proof of a "known, predetermined algorithm". AI doesn't "harvest" content either. You are a moron.
Re:How is this different? (Score:4, Interesting)
Make no mistake, it's not an iteration on the "classical way computers would analyze text" it's just an iteration of how much computational horsepower they can throw behind the analysis, and how much total raw source data they can throw into it. There was some chain of AI generated images going around early on and there was talk of how certain groups of questioning seemed to mysteriously include a similar looking lady. I forget what they were calling her but there was a lot of talk about how the pictures were "haunted" by this "creepy" visage. Well, guess what. She's just a person in one of the source images and the reason she kept showing up wasn't supernatural in origin. If they'd used more women in the source data the AI could have come up with some different women. That's all. Garbage-in, garbage-out. CS 101.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You work for them, don't you? Calling me names doesn't make you magically right.
Re: (Score:2)
to harvest the content and regurgitate it in a predictable format
Is that a paraphrase of "to become a writer by reading many books at a young age and learning from it"? If so, then it looks like pretty much all authors could be sued for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and authors are people who write things to be read. They monetize it by selling what they write. AI is trained by "reading" what people write. Training AI with authored text is using that text for precisely what it is meant for and for which the author has already been compensated.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, perhaps it is more like photocopying the whole library, or actually, scanning and OCRing the whole library to read later and keep a copy for reference.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if the decision is rendered by people who understand how LLMs work on technical level, even if they exclusively trained it on copyright protected works, my guess is its fair use.
It really has to be it just collecting facts about the works. Statistical frequencies of groups of tokens. Statistics about the relationships between the groups, and other stuff, its not storing the text strings.
Its always been legally permissible to record and report on facts about a copyright protected work. Imagine if Pa
Re: (Score:2)
"..even if they exclusively trained it on copyright protected works, my guess is its fair use."
It's not fair use, it is legal use as intended. Reading copyrighted material is NOT a violation of copyright.
Anyone who reads works is merely "collecting facts about the works", "training" their own "neural network" using that text.
Re: (Score:2)
The AI is using known, predetermined algorithms to harvest the content and regurgitate it in a predictable format, and is being fed copywrited source data illegally by handlers who are essentially stealing said source data. Artists who do the same thing also get sued for plagiarism. The only difference is the AI can put enough extra steps in the process that it's less obvious.
LOL 'stealing' next you'll be saying that torrenting movies is theft.
Re: (Score:1)
I like how you used the word "said" so that you sound informed, as opposed to the ignorant douche that you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing = Theft, the illegal act of taking another person's property without that person's freely-given consent
As owner still has their property, it has not been taken, so it is not stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
The AI is using known, predetermined algorithms to harvest the content and regurgitate it in a predictable format, and is being fed copywrited source data illegally by handlers who are essentially stealing said source data.
There is nothing predictable about these systems. Not only do any responses from machines depend upon context of the question randomness is explicitly injected such that even if you were to ask the very same question with the very same context you may well get a wildly different response.
If I go to a website that has copyrighted material on it, read that content and learn from it am I doing something wrong? If not what's the difference if a machine does the same thing? Copyrights are not a grant of exclu
Re: (Score:2)
Just because an algorithm is known doesn't mean it can't do novel things. One could claim evolution is a known algorithm...
Mathematically it's often not possible to regurgitate the content. For example, GPT4 is estimated to have 1T parameters (at least 32T bits) and is estimated to be trained with around 20T tokens. Assuming each token is around 8 characters, that's 1280T bits. Even with
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is the AI's owner never got permission to perform the work to the AI.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Checking out a book from the library doesn't give you rights to do whatever you want. Just like how checking out a book from the library doesn't give you permission to read it into a microphone connected to a broadcast radio tower, it didn't give you permission to read it into an AI training dataset.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except its literally not the same thing. AIs are machines. Its the same thing as format shifting, at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Every creative person has taken from something they have experienced "without permission". AI can do it faster.
Exactly.
If its publicly viewable and accessible to humans, why shouldn't it be useable by AI?
Re: (Score:3)
I can see your face walking down the street. I cannot however legally take a picture of you and use it on a billboard to hock my wares. There are existing lines in the sand about acceptable uses of publicly observable things. Plagarism can get you fired/sued.
AI opens up the issue to the difference between stealing from a single person and allowing massive automated theft under the guise that by churning it through a black box you are no longer "stealing", but just "training".
Re: (Score:3)
I can see your face walking down the street. I cannot however legally take a picture of you and use it on a billboard to hock my wares.
But I can draw a picture vaguely similar to your face and use it on a billboard to hock my wares.
In any case, you're talking about a completely different area of law; your face isn't copyrighted.
Re: (Score:2)
No Urgent Need (Score:2)
"There is no urgent need for an AI to write a novel."
Well, no urgent need for a human to write one either.
Re: (Score:1)
disagree completely
once you move past pure survival, writing a great novel is among the most important things someone can do - you are a conscious being
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"There is no urgent need for an AI to write a novel."
Well, no urgent need for a human to write one either.
Except for George RR Martin.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wondering how long.. (Score:2)
Since ChatGPT doesn't give a bibliography or resources used with each response, nor does it do a good job citing sources in its answers, its responses may be in copyright violation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You still don't get it, while some AI may use copyright material in a response, the latest crop, learn general concepts from examples and does never, at any point, store the source information. It builds a giant diffusion map or semantic map. It's abstracted to a broader level of generalization. Whoever restricts AI will become the new third world.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, they don't *learn* anything. We need new words to describe what they do, because adapting existing language also confers meaning that is not true. Like calling it "artificial intelligence" - it's not intelligent. It knows nothing. It cannot know anything.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not intelligent. It knows nothing. It cannot know anything.
This is philosophy and will never be universally agreed upon, like all philosophy.
The do it like everybody (Score:4, Insightful)
They READ the books and learn from them.
The AI has just a better memory than most.
What's next, schoolbook authors suing AI because they can speak English?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. The people who are writing this software are the same types who say "everything should be free". They basically said "well they let us scrape this data, so we're using it", with zero thoughts of consequences, assuming that nothing will be done because nothing ever has. These tech companies move so much faster than legislators and regulators that they believe they are untouchable. Perhaps this time around the copyright holders will act soon enough to stop the theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are EXTREMELY wrong about this. Large corporations are overwhelmingly concerned about the legal consequences of applying AI models.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
aren't going to be many books
...I really should have added "in the belles-lettres genre", mind you -- not things like scientific papers or monographs. But certainly things like novels or short stories qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did your school algebra book cite the original al-jabr book as a source?
Does a school book even have a references section?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
" If I read a 1000 books and learn how to write books, how to create an engaging story, how to create dialogue, how to make plot twists, and I use all that gathered knowledge to write a new book,"
BTW, somebody should sue Tarantino then.
Re: (Score:2)
But the discussion is about training AI's, not applying them to tasks (which is what authoring using AI would be).
There is no copyright violation when training an AI, there could be one later if a significant portion of a copyrighted work is regurgitated. That isn't being claimed, nor are the complainants here even aware of that issue.
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States, for instance, fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
Re: (Score:2)
"But if you author something based on other sources, it is customary to cite your sources within the narrative, or in a bibliography."
Apparently not even scientists know that rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FALSE, and programmable.
Re: (Score:2)
"schoolbooks are written by humans who, btw, also had to eat and made a living meticulously writing them"
Lots of them ate and died.
You authors have let us down! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With all that creativity how is it no one has imagined a modern economic system besides capitalism? ;)
Well authors, welcome to capitalism maybe now you'll think of something
Not sure if joking?
In case you aren't, the reason you think this way is that there has been massive propaganda to make you think capitalism is the only possible modern economic system that just happens to match human psychology and everything else is doomed to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't conflate capitalism and freedom. The two are definitely not linked in any way at all. We are just fortunate enough that they coincide today. In pre-civil war America, chattel slavery was integral to their capitalism.
Also, we don't have capitalism here anyway. We have highly subsidized pseudo-capital markets full of monopolies and oligopolies with economic cycles where businesses run up debts while declaring huge profits for themselves, and then transfer those debts to the public during the nex
Re: (Score:2)
"We have highly subsidized pseudo-capital markets full of monopolies and oligopolies ..."
That IS capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm a capitalist myself because I believe in freedom..."
You sound uninformed.
"That aspect will only grow as AI improves and people who own it can just siphon money out while it bleeds humanity dry."
You're a capitalist, you support that.
Didn't work out so well for VCR machines (Score:2)
Oh wait, it did. Hollywood desperately tried to stop VCRs from becoming a thing. The old way of doing things is over once a disruptive technology takes root. Same thing happened to the music industry. You know, that industry that thrived on forcing you to buy a CD with 11 songs on it that you didn't want so you could get the one song you did. MP3s and iTunes disrupted that business model. Some aspects of existing businesses are going away. Some will remain. Content creators are going to have to get
Re: (Score:2)
AI is not like other technology and cannot be treated the same way
Bullshit. This is some psuedo spiritual bullshit. AI is made and controlled by people, just like any other technology.
Act before it's too late (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't read a book and make a movie just like it without paying the author. Why should AI be able to do the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
"Why should AI be able to do the same thing?"
No one is saying otherwise, what they are saying is that AI can't read the book.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright (Score:2)
Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
"The only people who might need that are the people who object to paying writers what they're worth."
Yes, the same reason to use AI because people don't want to pay for stock-photos, models, lighting, photographers, painters, background, actors, stuntmen ...
Nobody wants to do it for the cultural enlightenment of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
"You see, the income of a full-time writer is dishearteningly low, with a decline of 42% between 2009 and 2019, according to The Authors Guild."
Yes, the whip-makers guild had the same problem.
Who did these authors "steal" from? (Score:2)
Virtually all of human endeavour involves iteration on previous works. Why do these people think that AI should be singled out from this universal process? I've heard more than a few directors/writers/actors boasting about their use of a previous work as the basis for their own, such as "my story is [insert book/film title] in space". Virtually all of Disney's films are iterations on old folk tales. The common way to educate new writers/directors/actors is to have them read/analyze/portray vast amounts
in other news... (Score:2)
In other news, the authors are also suing other authors demanding that they get permission to read their works before being influenced by them. The suit requests that other authors be enjoined from using any words the plaintiffs have used in their works.
Knowledge is free (Score:2)
double standard (Score:2)
This just seems like a gripe fest that AIs can learn how to do what you are doing.