The Biggest AI Coverup Just Got Exposed

Comment

hopefully the lawsuits fail. Copyright is an infringement on free speech. And we need AI to advance further, any hindrance to AI progress will cost human lives, which are worth more than any IP rights

LLMs AGI IP Laws Free speech and the sciences

 Copyright and patent laws are not natural rights, they're instruments to encourage progress.  If they stop promoting progress, or worse hinder it, they lose their constitutional justification.

These IP laws are a violation of free speech currently allowed and justified under the dubious notion they promote progress in arts and sciences.  When it is the free exchange of ideas that maximizes progress of arts and sciences.

That said with the arrival of artificial general intelligence and eventually superintelligence it will become even more evident that IP laws hinder progress in arts and sciences and lack constitutional justification, but are in fact unconstitutional.   You cant restrict peoples inalienable natural innate inviolable natural right yk freedom of speech just to harm the public good by hindering progress.

In the mean time in coming years it is likely llms and or any more advanced ai will be able to analyze binaries, machine code or closed software even obfuscated and reverse engineer and replicate function of any and all privately sold software resulting in the easy creation of open source software of same function but different underlying reverse engineered code.

Whether such can be offered publicly or not doesnt matter much if local llms continue to get better.  As anyone will be able to privately recreate any software they like.   The ability of llms and future more advanced software will make any software ad a service company need to innovate and look for other sources of value to provide besides functionality.

Comment on cool gundam ai music video from youtuber FantasyRemaster

 

Comment:  algorithms are getting faster and cheaper to run. But without copyright reform only small clips can likely be made even if it eventually becomes practical to remake the whole series. A full 1 for 1 full series remaster would likely need blessing of copyright owners. But currently the laws say ai gen is copyright free, which is also a problem on its own. We definitely need new laws to enable fair use and sharing of royalties while retaining some level of rights to those that modify and update content with ai tools

Copyright: Forever Less One Day

comment: copyright used to last far less, as it should, but it was extended to the detriment of the art and sciences,  and harm to the people of the land.

We are in need of copyright reform to reduce copyright duration and extend fair use rights, other nations need fair use inscribed as constitutional right.

news music copyright

Musicians Algorithmically Generate Every Possible Melody, Release Them to Public Domain

"Under copyright law, numbers are facts, and under copyright law, facts either have thin copyright, almost no copyright, or no copyright at all," Riehl explained in the talk. "So maybe if these numbers have existed since the beginning of time and we're just plucking them out, maybe melodies are just math, which is just facts, which is not copyrightable."-https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain

With enough computation and storage capacity the same could easily be done for other domains such as images.

COPYRIGHT REFORM COMMENT 2018

Copyright is an infringement of free speech.  I mean we know that if we write something, it is speech too, some say even money is speech, iirc.  Now tool assisted communication, such as a telephone call, is still speech.   If you use an algorithm and a computer to assist in the copying of one number from one location to another, how can that be illegal?    Because it is a fact that is just what it is, using tool assistance to copy one number from one location to another. It is merely tool assisted communication.    I mean you can charge money for improving society, taxes, so you should be able to justify charging money for such speech but not excessive punishment, nor should you be able to prohibit tool assisted communication and free exchange of ideas.  

That said, I still think we should have some form of copyright to protect artists.   I think producers should be pursued not consumers.  I also think the punishment needs to be proportional to the crime, potentially years in jail and tens, hundreds of thousands or even millions?  That seems cruel and unusual excessive punishment.   

But thing is I have a different position on copyright and patents, I think given that we all have a right to free speech, you cannot take that basic human right away merely to incentivize art creation.   Nor will it ever be justifiable to punish an individual for basic use of their innate human rights.  I think copyright should be modified so as to grant you the right to a REASONABLE royalty for your creation, but you cannot bar others from creating and selling unofficial fanfiction versions, nor prohibit distribution.    You merely take a cut of their income, a reasonable cut.

Same with patents, you should not be able to bar others from using your inventions or charge exorbitant fees.   You shouldn't be able to deny licensing, and licensing should have a reasonable cost.   This fosters innovation and competition.

Right now copyright and patents are harming innovation, startups, the development of the art and science, rather than fostering progress these laws are harming progress as well as the innocent. Harming humanity and civilization for the profit of the few.   The free exchange of ideas, allows society to develop and progress, these laws are an impediment to such, slowing down progress and reducing competition in the market.

TLDR:

You can potentially charge people some money merely for communicating, in order to incentivize the arts and science, though speech being a basic innate human right, you cannot deny their basic human rights nor use barbaric excessive punishment to incentivize the arts and science.   Really, we cannot take away basic human rights of others to incentivize artists, but let's be honest it likely is the middlemen who benefit the most, and many artists are actually harmed by such laws, and their creative output is stifled.

In patents, we've seen patent trolls, and large corporations with large war chests of patents threatening smaller companies and startups with extensive litigation and extorting them out of the market or to give away their inventions in exchange for peanuts.   Same happens in the arts, with large corporations having gargantuan ever growing body of copyright that can be used against new independent artists on the grounds of similarity.

Comment on copyright and possible single payer

I've heard good portion of meds are partly or wholly based on federally funded research.

I say increase Federal Research funding, especially in underfunded areas like antibiotics and less common diseases and change patent law. You must be legally obligated to license any patent at a reasonable portion of a product price royalty. 

That's my view both copyright as well as patents must be obligatorily licensed at a reasonable portion of licensee's product price.

Comment on copyright

I think that copyright monopoly of ideas is an infringement on the freedom of others to express their ideas.    We know that given enough time a machine will generate all content past present and future, there's a finite number of possible content for say a 4k HDR tv.    That said, freedom should never be infringed if it does not directly physically or mentally harm another conscious being.    The idea that somehow cobbling up some content, often reusing older content, gives you a monopoly over said content, that infringes on the rights of others to freely express themselves.

My view is, ok as an innovator and originator of an idea in a particular time and place, privileges can be granted, but we cannot bar others from saying certain words or using certain ideas.   What should probably be done, in a better world, is that EVERYONE is allowed to use all content as if it were in the public domain, but the chain of reuse gives a percent of generated income back the chain of creation.    That is derivative works give a percent of their income, probably 10-25% and this is shared by all sources from which the derivative borrows proportional to their contribution.  

The claim of being originator can be disputed, and such issues can be resolved through a back and forth exchange in a system designed to deal with such.   Once the world allowed freedom of content creation, this would likely lead to vastly more varied and richer content being generated.    Similar should hold for patents, to put an end to patent chests and patent trolls, during the period of holding a patent you're forced by law to license at a percent of generated income that does not impede profit.

I find that such would be an excellent compromise between rewarding 'originators' of ideas, and not infringing the freedom of the population to express themselves.

Infringing others freedoms without just cause, is an injustice.   A world built on injustice, is a world in need of reform.  

On the ridiculousness of IP laws, copyright

The US copyright law:

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place
where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family
and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance
or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times.

Ah, their ridiculous attempt to rule out devices which are merely natural extensions of the body. Problem with that is Stephen Hawking, and other people with neural interfaces, they need devices to even interact aptly with the world.

Also we can define both the muscles of the body and their action as both natural device or process.

If money is a form of speech, ideas are speech. When banks exchange money they exchange digital data, digital numbers, there is a numerical quantity equal to any work of art that is possible. So if we are free to exchange money which today is basically just fundamentally digital numbers, we are free to exchange those numbers at any value including ones corresponding to works of art.

Say, I have a lot of money, and say I send a precise quantity of money, but the quantity corresponds to the compressed form of some copyrighted work. Are you saying it is illegal in principle for me to send this precise quantity of money? Don't you see how ridiculous and self-contradictory that is.

Inflation alone will ensure quantities get big enough that you can send precise quantities corresponding to any of the reasonable size finite set of works of art. Or are you going to DICTATE what precise quantities of money people can send to each other?-source kurzweilai

Comment on the blockchain tech and IP laws

The purpose of money is to help facilitate exchanges of goods and services of different value.

Goods and values can be generated out of the ether even de novo, sharing an idea does not mean we must somehow butcher our property or our minds.

The blockchain is useful for people to prove authorship and to gain fair compensation. That does not mean that it shouldn't exist in light of a world free of IP laws a world where copyright and patents are no more. Only fair attribution and compensation by fans directly to the coiner, the finder, the so-called 'creator' of the idea, WILLINGLY WILLINGLY not by THREAT OF FORCE is fair.

The same happens with many of the worlds religions, which claim God has a right to FORCED compensation under THREAT OF FORCE. That is an erroneous idea, and it simply proves these religions false. People compensate WILLINGLY WILLINGLY WILLINGLY and if you USE FORCE and THREATS to get your way, we all know that's UNFAIR.-source link

That said the physical law states that information is neither created nor destroyed, if we apply this to our digital world, this implies that ideas are discovered not created.   Naturally existing, ideas, do not belong to anyone.

Article over at phys.org on ending copyright and patent law

Abolishing patent and copyright laws sounds radical, but two economists at Washington University in St. Louis say it's an idea whose time has come. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine see innovation as a key to reviving the economy. They believe the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. The two professors have published their views in a new book, Against Intellecutual Monopoly, from Cambridge University Press.

"From a public policy view, we'd ideally like to eliminate patent and copyright laws altogether," says Levine, John H. Biggs Distinguished Professor of Economics. "There's plenty of protection for inventors and plenty of protection and opportunities to make money for creators. It's not that we see this as some sort of charitable act that people are going to invent and create things without earning money. Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2009-03-economists-copyright-patent-laws-economy.html#jCp

The right idea, if you ask me.  Freedom of ideas, the free exchange of information, that is the way it is meant to be.

nice news

EFF sues US government, saying copyright rules on DRM are unconstitutional

DMCA's "anti-circumvention" rule has rankled hackers and scholars for a long time.-source

DMCA affecting physical stuff

"Victory! Carmakers Can't Use The DMCA To Make Working On Your Car Illegal

Possibly the most bizarre application of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act finally got the exemption us car enthusiasts have deserved.

Recently some automakers (with support from the EPA of all places) tried to argue that they own the code in your car, and messing with that code would violate their copyright."-source link

The DMCA(wikipedia link) is an abomination, the only thing it did right was the protection of online sites by limiting liability, iirc.

Now in the above article it says how an exemption was given for cars and how it will be rereviewed 3 years later again.   What sort of law opens the possibility that a person can't even fix their own car, the possibility of making fixing your own property illegal?  Needing exemptions to not make what are your RIGHTS, your RIGHTS over your own property something up to the whims of bureaucrats?

"As of right now, since farmers don’t enjoy the exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that gearheads managed to secure, it’s still illegal for a farmer to even attempt to diagnose an issue with their own tractor. That means even trying to check if a code a, say, John Deere 8235 R tractor is throwing means a huge issue or just a filter at the end of its cycle. "-link to source

Amazing, people not being allowed to fix their own property, saying they don't really own what they bought.  This is ridiculous nonsense, and is proof that those who voted for such legislation are not fit to legislate.   The world works by survival of the fittest, but human society exists in a bubble where the unfit guide the world.  Thankfully a temporary thing, the advent of a higher form of intelligence will once again ensure that the planet is governed by the fittest lifeforms.  

Comment on copyright

Companies have been successfully lobbying the government for more copyright extensions.   Copyright is ok, but for a limited time, a REASONABLY limited time only.   But all these unreasonable extensions to copyright have harmed the public.

The generation of content, excellent content, is probably one of the greatest things the human race does.  By content I mean art, beautiful wonderful art.   If the governments of the world will not do what is best for the people, and for the world, because of corruption, then they're simply not fit to lead.

The following video from someone on cracked comments on this, but it makes some silly comments regarding BvS