BookVsBot

Insane detail that emerged in unsealed documents in Bartz v. Anthropic: Dario Amodei wrote a document arguing that the creators behind AI’s training data should get paid. He said: - It was a “real and important concern” that big companies were training on books to “extract concentrated profits” - These models would outcompete the humans behind the training data in the long run - It would therefore be fair to share profits with them “What is happening macroeconomically is that distributed human labor is being used to train AI models by large, centralized actors, who concentrate the resulting profits while in the long run making the human labor obsolete … An alternative that may work better for everyone, is to compensate data/content producers for their labor, not at a flat rate, but with a fraction of the profits from the model produced.” - Dario Amodei, 2021 He says this would be a great fit for Anthropic’s public benefit orientation. I agree with 2021 Dario Amodei. (Needless to say, no such profit sharing scheme materialised.)

Every creative person I know that has embraced AI as a tool for their art has produced more content this month than all of last year. A true creative individual sees AI and feels completely empowered. They feel like the entire world has opened up to them. But a lot of self professed creative people, who have been grifting as creatives for decades, are about to be exposed as frauds who and pretenders who only know how to work within the politics of the current system. They will sit down before the greatest tool for creativity the world has ever known and not have a single idea how to use it or what story to tell. Pay attention to what is happening and who rejects the gift, and who embraces it.

🚨 BREAKING: The U.S. Copyright Office SIDES WITH CONTENT CREATORS, concluding in its latest report that the fair use exception likely does not apply to commercial AI training. From the report's conclusion: "Various uses of copyrighted works in AI training are likely to be transformative. The extent to which they are fair, however, will depend on what works were used, from what source, for what purpose, and with what controls on the outputs—all of which can affect the market. When a model is deployed for purposes such as analysis or research—the types of uses that are critical to international competitiveness—the outputs are unlikely to substitute for expressive works used in training. But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries. For those uses that may not qualify as fair, practical solutions are critical to support ongoing innovation. Licensing agreements for AI training, both individual and collective, are fast emerging in certain sectors, although their availability so far is inconsistent. Given the robust growth of voluntary licensing, as well as the lack of stakeholder support for any statutory change, the Office believes government intervention would be premature at this time. Rather, licensing markets should continue to develop, extending early successes into more contexts as soon as possible. In those areas where remaining gaps are unlikely to be filled, alternative approaches such as extended collective licensing should be considered to address any market failure. In our view, American leadership in the AI space would best be furthered by supporting both of these world-class industries that contribute so much to our economic and cultural advancement. Effective licensing options can ensure that innovation continues to advance without undermining intellectual property rights. These groundbreaking technologies should benefit both the innovators who design them and the creators whose content fuels them, as well as the general public." - My comments: Although this is a pre-publication version, the report states: "The Office is releasing this pre-publication version of Part 3 in response to congressional inquiries and expressions of interest from stakeholders. A final version will be published in the near future, without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions." It's GREAT NEWS for content creators/copyright holders, especially as the U.S. Copyright Office's opinion will likely influence present and future AI copyright lawsuits in the U.S. As I've written before, licensing deals seem to be the future of AI training. 👉 Read the full report in the link below. 👉 NEVER MISS my updates and analyses: join my newsletter's 61,000+ subscribers using the link below.