There is a better way. #FreeTheCreator with micropayments. What was technologically impossible yesterday is now possible today. Creators of copywritten content can now put a one-click, fraction of a penny paywall in front of their work. Humans who want to enjoy or consume that content can do so at minimal cost, in real-time, with only click, and no need to login, register or subscribe. That tiny friction is enough of a barrier to the data scraping bots trying to grab content, without to train the genAI platforms. For legitimately acquired content it's much more efficient and feasible to push real-time micro-distributions to creators and with big cost savings for the genAI and content platform as well. #FreeTheCreator
Breaking r(AI)nks? Cracks in the AI establishment? Bloomberg reports: "Ed Newton-Rex, who was Stability’s vice president of audio, said Wednesday at the Cerebral Valley AI Summit in San Francisco that he left the company because he doesn’t believe that it’s legal to develop AI models using copyrighted content. Generative AI, one of the fastest-growing areas of artificial intelligence, functions by using vast swathes of data to train computers to generate content — like a poem, a song or an image — in response to a user’s prompt. Stability, which is known for the generative AI image tool Stable Diffusion, maintains that its practices are protected under the “fair use” doctrine of US copyright law, and asserted as much in a letter last month to the US Copyright Office... ... many AI products use copyrighted material for training without paying for it. Newton-Rex called that practice “wrong” because the models create derivative content that can compete commercially with the original works. “Exploiting creators can’t be the long-term solution in generative AI,” he wrote in a resignation statement." 🤔 Is instability diffusing throughout the industry? "That interpretation of copyright law is not commonly held among big tech companies, Newton-Rex explained in an interview. “My impression is that generally, everyone’s gunning toward the biggest models that will be as powerful and as fast as possible,” he said. Most companies in the field have a practical incentive to take a liberal interpretation of the “fair use” copyright exception. “It’s common sense how you reach that conclusion if you want to reach that conclusion,” he added." Fair use is a famously flexible doctrine so that it is possible for the same act to amount to fair use in one context but not another. Of course, if it is in your financial interest for the same result to follow, you'll be amazed at how blind human beings can be. In a separate but related report (https://lnkd.in/g-G_NN_S): "Some prominent figures in Silicon Valley have suggested artificial intelligence will eventually create so much wealth that companies could redistribute it to the public, including people whose livelihoods were impacted by AI. But Jaron Lanier sees problems with that plan. “I don't want to create more people who are just dependent on state payout to survive,” said Lanier, a technology pioneer and Microsoft Corp.’s Prime Unifying Scientist. “I want to create more, if you like, creative classes of people who are really good at providing fresh data that makes the models work better. So everybody benefits.”" 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 The point of innovation should be to improve society, not enrich a few who then throw scraps to the disenfranchised masses. The full podcast episode is available https://lnkd.in/g_AcrrGq. https://lnkd.in/gNNfSfXu