There is no way to check what percentage of anyone's work was used in GenAI output. Structurally, it's impossible.
The people who make the AI cannot tell you what amount that any of the training data was given in the output in any given prompt.
Several of these are impossible.
Of course creators should get paid whn their creators are monetized by others, though. It needs to be solved. Generative AI is a technology that shouldn't exist in it's current form, and someone should drag it into court and make a scene.
It's a very clear layout. It appears like AI tightened writing. The problem is the structuralism behind brokering data for money are outside of US lines.
All the data conversion to $$ lies outside the power of the Americas. We would have to start demanding critical observance of our data as a copyright issue, that would be stolen for use by BRICS conversion and PRC GenAI training tables. As it stands, there is a gentlemans' agreement with Harvard Business heads to not observe your claim to fame, as it would be, in name, image and likeness. That's the 3K foot issue. There is a Hollywood brokerage clique who wants to cut out and keep cutting out recognition of Users as people with personal rights on these issues, because they are part of the problem. They traffic social platform data just like the other tech/media players. They're on the Harvard program.
What you actually need to enforce the will of the consumer, is a mass consent injunction backed by a very strong IP protectorate, issued by a "copyright troll" State, like Texas. Then... you need someone like Pam Bondi to enforce USPTO restrictions, actionable TODAY within US borders, on third party collection and data brokerages from front end collections and cookies. EU has 'cookie consent'.
You have to limit the data transfer to U.S. allies only to make this meaningful. You need new law to treat pii, current and past brokered identity data, as a personal product that includes you in the pricing agreements. The lawyers will will away any claim that you own your face. They cannot do that and then solicit you for broad based unfair billing on the front end. It can't be "censorship" and data slavery" at the same time.
If the platforms make money from the brokerages, there shall be a functionary trust or a fiduciary agent appointed by the courts. They would be there to enforce consent exchanges, monitor price actions, make sure data classifications are managed by the consumer. Think of it as an extension of the FTC and the FDIC at the U.S. Dept. of Treasury.
Involuntary servitude in Mr. Karps Eye of Souron (Palantir) gets punched in the cornea the moment you invoke citizenship online. So why can't we tell Chinese exchange partners, 3rd party data grubbers, to go to hell BEFORE they get the data? If we involve trade restrictions on American data, we have to produce a case with a federal Senate office, stating that 1) we are a U.S. citizen and 2) we want trade restrictions for BRICS nation state exchanges. The Senate goes to the U.S. Treasury Dept and substantiates an enforcement action based on nation-state rights to not use your Name, Image and Likeness for platformer commerce traffic.
Now, depending on the deals you already have with studios, you will likely need 2- 3 lawyers to fine tune a specific demand that deconflicts, say, Hollywood commitments with your personal living data. There is a distinction between professional commercial work and your family data.
Anything that's a one-way 'SUBMIT YOUR SLAVE' button is not going to do anything but displace intellectual property rights over data and speed the data as high-handed-international-waters-zero-human-rights- traffic to India or China as fast as possible to turn your pii (med records, bank information, IP transliteration) to currency conversion.
Don't f**k around, Joe. These pirates are really comfortable. They want you to think they're a mafia now. You cut them off, there's going to be a civil war of sorts martialed by people like Peter Thiel and Adam Karp who take their orders from China, Russia, India, Israel and this U.S. government. If you have to pick a side, pick yours.
This is slightly a different story but, I personally want to meet your joe journal content regarding these day's hot topic of Netflix buying WB. Big fan of yours since WP AI op-ed and become a subscriber since then! Cheers mate!
It seems we are in a new era of what we post online to be data mined for AI. We didn't really care before AI about FB, Instagram, etc. having access to what we post. Now it's crucial for us to safeguard our images, writing, creative content. How we do that is already too late for what's been posted for years now. Seems to me how we post currently is the crucial question.
Everything here is relevant and would be fair and ideal. Unfortunately, many AI tools are already interacting with our daily use apps and programs, and we are not being asked to opt in, but rather have to magically realize they are doing this and specifically find the correct setup and opt out. Thanks for leading the conversation on this matter.
This is already a solved problem in music, where there’s distribution rights tracked via digital value chain (a la ddex). Additionally for general asset generation tracking there’s a new standard called c2pa. So if you combined the two you could have proper content tracking and monetization / compensation just like what’s already being done for music rights management.
Always a provocative pleasure reading these missives of yours, Mr. Gordon-Levitt. As a creative this is an important issue to me, so I find myself forced to unload a tl:dr upon you. I hope you find some time to read it, even if it's while in the bathroom (no pride here).
Part of the problem is akin to the "getting the toothpaste back in the tube" analogy, or maybe "herding (feral) cats". We could go back to the original, some say fateful, decision that internet content "needs" to be free. Versus what we remember as having to pay, per copy, for a magazine, or a newspaper ("Meeeemorieeees..."), or a subscription rate to have said magazines or newspapers or comic books or movies SENT to us. (The price we paid for commercial television was, of course, Commercials.) The price we paid for that "freedom" was to have our data, our tastes, our commercial choices, our very lives, commodified, & trade it not only willingly but completely invisibly so that most users never know what that warm plate of cookies buried in each site is actually costing them. That has led to the base assumption by AI vendors and their tech bro overlords, that those very same preferences are now subject to "fair use."
There should have been a very clear and rigid line drawn between what could legitimately be sampled, the same way The Turtles set a legal precedent when De La Soul sampled one of their songs and thereby changed the game for sampling everyday since.
So how do we, at this late date, get a BMI or an ASCAP set up for every word we write & every line we draw & every word we speak? "Building out a system," as you concisely put it, is easy to say, & much harder to actually implement. I know this was a significant issue in the SAG drama that played out recently, one that affected you far more than it did me. And while I haven't read the agreement I did wonder, just for example, how you could have a voice & image "registry" so that your likeness & your voice & your gait, maybe, & your every utterance would be, if you so chose, LICENSABLE. (How much did the estate of Audrey Hepburn get for that damned makeup commercial a few years ago? Anything?) Google, for all their faults, does a damned upstanding job of making sure creators directly receive recompense for their work on YT. And there isn't necessarily anybody that has to get their "standard 15%" off the top in those instances. An artist has the option of making use of a tool such as Nightshade to confound the scraping of their images for use in AI (if it even still works) but the all-consuming amoebic mass that is AI is already sucking in EVERYTHING, omnidirectionally, & your proposal suggests that everyone would be amenable to that use. Maybe so. You're spot-on in your position that compensation is not just appropriate but long overdue, & so the problem remains: is all that has already been sucked in to be forever a lost cause? Do we only protect ourselves from here moving forward, assuming of course that your suggestions are even implementable? And who's going to be doing the implementing, & are they trustworthy? Must it by necessity be specific to each medium, or each "provider" ("Why hello there, Mr Provider, may I have your face?"), or type- of- use? Or all of the above? So I ask again in conclusion, where we begin at this late stage to try & herd those feral cats? Unless of course it's already too late, that we've all already been tied into canvas bags with those cats & have already been thrown into the middle of a lake with them.
Bravo! As a lecturer, author and "sermonizer (as 55 year rabbi), I create my material, referencing sources and quoting with attribution as appropriate. I own my intellectual property. I do not use any AI, ChatGPT, etc resources ( not even referencing Wikipedia), but there is no safeguard against use of my creations without permission. Do I "own" my postings? Or, as being posted in public, no longer mine? That's why Ned Ludd is my hero!
I've had a few instances where an AI prompt gave me a few response options to choose from, and now I'm thinking I should have been compensated for my labor.
yeah the thing about opt-in permissions is that they bury them in the settings inside menus that often have very poor descriptive names.
Great article!
There is no way to check what percentage of anyone's work was used in GenAI output. Structurally, it's impossible.
The people who make the AI cannot tell you what amount that any of the training data was given in the output in any given prompt.
Several of these are impossible.
Of course creators should get paid whn their creators are monetized by others, though. It needs to be solved. Generative AI is a technology that shouldn't exist in it's current form, and someone should drag it into court and make a scene.
It's a very clear layout. It appears like AI tightened writing. The problem is the structuralism behind brokering data for money are outside of US lines.
All the data conversion to $$ lies outside the power of the Americas. We would have to start demanding critical observance of our data as a copyright issue, that would be stolen for use by BRICS conversion and PRC GenAI training tables. As it stands, there is a gentlemans' agreement with Harvard Business heads to not observe your claim to fame, as it would be, in name, image and likeness. That's the 3K foot issue. There is a Hollywood brokerage clique who wants to cut out and keep cutting out recognition of Users as people with personal rights on these issues, because they are part of the problem. They traffic social platform data just like the other tech/media players. They're on the Harvard program.
What you actually need to enforce the will of the consumer, is a mass consent injunction backed by a very strong IP protectorate, issued by a "copyright troll" State, like Texas. Then... you need someone like Pam Bondi to enforce USPTO restrictions, actionable TODAY within US borders, on third party collection and data brokerages from front end collections and cookies. EU has 'cookie consent'.
You have to limit the data transfer to U.S. allies only to make this meaningful. You need new law to treat pii, current and past brokered identity data, as a personal product that includes you in the pricing agreements. The lawyers will will away any claim that you own your face. They cannot do that and then solicit you for broad based unfair billing on the front end. It can't be "censorship" and data slavery" at the same time.
If the platforms make money from the brokerages, there shall be a functionary trust or a fiduciary agent appointed by the courts. They would be there to enforce consent exchanges, monitor price actions, make sure data classifications are managed by the consumer. Think of it as an extension of the FTC and the FDIC at the U.S. Dept. of Treasury.
Involuntary servitude in Mr. Karps Eye of Souron (Palantir) gets punched in the cornea the moment you invoke citizenship online. So why can't we tell Chinese exchange partners, 3rd party data grubbers, to go to hell BEFORE they get the data? If we involve trade restrictions on American data, we have to produce a case with a federal Senate office, stating that 1) we are a U.S. citizen and 2) we want trade restrictions for BRICS nation state exchanges. The Senate goes to the U.S. Treasury Dept and substantiates an enforcement action based on nation-state rights to not use your Name, Image and Likeness for platformer commerce traffic.
Now, depending on the deals you already have with studios, you will likely need 2- 3 lawyers to fine tune a specific demand that deconflicts, say, Hollywood commitments with your personal living data. There is a distinction between professional commercial work and your family data.
Anything that's a one-way 'SUBMIT YOUR SLAVE' button is not going to do anything but displace intellectual property rights over data and speed the data as high-handed-international-waters-zero-human-rights- traffic to India or China as fast as possible to turn your pii (med records, bank information, IP transliteration) to currency conversion.
Don't f**k around, Joe. These pirates are really comfortable. They want you to think they're a mafia now. You cut them off, there's going to be a civil war of sorts martialed by people like Peter Thiel and Adam Karp who take their orders from China, Russia, India, Israel and this U.S. government. If you have to pick a side, pick yours.
https://youtu.be/GGOwiYC4AoU?si=eI2g2_-6sTMkwmD2
This is slightly a different story but, I personally want to meet your joe journal content regarding these day's hot topic of Netflix buying WB. Big fan of yours since WP AI op-ed and become a subscriber since then! Cheers mate!
It seems we are in a new era of what we post online to be data mined for AI. We didn't really care before AI about FB, Instagram, etc. having access to what we post. Now it's crucial for us to safeguard our images, writing, creative content. How we do that is already too late for what's been posted for years now. Seems to me how we post currently is the crucial question.
This is absolutely brilliant and well written and articulated. I agree any of this can be accomplished through conscious collective action and support
Everything here is relevant and would be fair and ideal. Unfortunately, many AI tools are already interacting with our daily use apps and programs, and we are not being asked to opt in, but rather have to magically realize they are doing this and specifically find the correct setup and opt out. Thanks for leading the conversation on this matter.
This is already a solved problem in music, where there’s distribution rights tracked via digital value chain (a la ddex). Additionally for general asset generation tracking there’s a new standard called c2pa. So if you combined the two you could have proper content tracking and monetization / compensation just like what’s already being done for music rights management.
Always a provocative pleasure reading these missives of yours, Mr. Gordon-Levitt. As a creative this is an important issue to me, so I find myself forced to unload a tl:dr upon you. I hope you find some time to read it, even if it's while in the bathroom (no pride here).
Part of the problem is akin to the "getting the toothpaste back in the tube" analogy, or maybe "herding (feral) cats". We could go back to the original, some say fateful, decision that internet content "needs" to be free. Versus what we remember as having to pay, per copy, for a magazine, or a newspaper ("Meeeemorieeees..."), or a subscription rate to have said magazines or newspapers or comic books or movies SENT to us. (The price we paid for commercial television was, of course, Commercials.) The price we paid for that "freedom" was to have our data, our tastes, our commercial choices, our very lives, commodified, & trade it not only willingly but completely invisibly so that most users never know what that warm plate of cookies buried in each site is actually costing them. That has led to the base assumption by AI vendors and their tech bro overlords, that those very same preferences are now subject to "fair use."
There should have been a very clear and rigid line drawn between what could legitimately be sampled, the same way The Turtles set a legal precedent when De La Soul sampled one of their songs and thereby changed the game for sampling everyday since.
So how do we, at this late date, get a BMI or an ASCAP set up for every word we write & every line we draw & every word we speak? "Building out a system," as you concisely put it, is easy to say, & much harder to actually implement. I know this was a significant issue in the SAG drama that played out recently, one that affected you far more than it did me. And while I haven't read the agreement I did wonder, just for example, how you could have a voice & image "registry" so that your likeness & your voice & your gait, maybe, & your every utterance would be, if you so chose, LICENSABLE. (How much did the estate of Audrey Hepburn get for that damned makeup commercial a few years ago? Anything?) Google, for all their faults, does a damned upstanding job of making sure creators directly receive recompense for their work on YT. And there isn't necessarily anybody that has to get their "standard 15%" off the top in those instances. An artist has the option of making use of a tool such as Nightshade to confound the scraping of their images for use in AI (if it even still works) but the all-consuming amoebic mass that is AI is already sucking in EVERYTHING, omnidirectionally, & your proposal suggests that everyone would be amenable to that use. Maybe so. You're spot-on in your position that compensation is not just appropriate but long overdue, & so the problem remains: is all that has already been sucked in to be forever a lost cause? Do we only protect ourselves from here moving forward, assuming of course that your suggestions are even implementable? And who's going to be doing the implementing, & are they trustworthy? Must it by necessity be specific to each medium, or each "provider" ("Why hello there, Mr Provider, may I have your face?"), or type- of- use? Or all of the above? So I ask again in conclusion, where we begin at this late stage to try & herd those feral cats? Unless of course it's already too late, that we've all already been tied into canvas bags with those cats & have already been thrown into the middle of a lake with them.
Just a thought... If China is using AI, how much of our data is being used by the Chinese, or any foreign entity?
Bravo! As a lecturer, author and "sermonizer (as 55 year rabbi), I create my material, referencing sources and quoting with attribution as appropriate. I own my intellectual property. I do not use any AI, ChatGPT, etc resources ( not even referencing Wikipedia), but there is no safeguard against use of my creations without permission. Do I "own" my postings? Or, as being posted in public, no longer mine? That's why Ned Ludd is my hero!
Gold Sheckles??? Maybe? Huh?
They’re never going to help me can stop trying
I've had a few instances where an AI prompt gave me a few response options to choose from, and now I'm thinking I should have been compensated for my labor.
Excellent synopsis. Thank you.