This Company ALLEGEDLY Stole Marques Brownlee's and LTT's Videos...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Hello guys and gals, it's me Mutahar again! This time we take a look at AI companies once again, in this case Runway. Training data is the lifeblood to standing out amongst the crown and it appears that allegedly this company was using RUclipsrs content without permission all while raising millions of dollars. Thanks for watching!
Like, Comment and Subscribe for more videos!
![Who Wrote a Short Story That Seriously Disturbed a Teacher? | Dirty Laundry x Smosh [Full Episode]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bvHAy_rKoEI/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one of the few times I'd want the Nintendo legal ninjas to pop off.
Me too!
I hope they smite this company out of existence
I honestly can't believe they haven't yet. They're so eager to stamp out a singular use of Donald Duck by miniscule cottage businesses and they're just going to let a multimillion company get away with scraping all their stuff?? Doesn't sound like the Nintendo we all know and love to hate on.
wont happen, the inverstors wont be happy
If only they used that energy for things that mattered, but they never will.
In the 2020s, "In a revelation surprising no-one, machine-learning projects used unlicensed training data" will be a headline as omnipresent as late 2010s "Social media and ad company unlawfully collected user data".
One is about public data and one is about private data. Totally different scenarios. People are purposefully overreacting and mixing the 2 because they are "worried about their jobs" aka they don't want to adapt and have the entitlement to see technological progressions as invasions of their property. Basically the Luddite movement all over again.
@@zg3342 Well, even with humans, we do care. Try getting your hand on learning material. School books and the like and then sell it refurbished. You won't be waiting long for the lawsuits for copyright infringement.
Yes AI learns like we do, well kind of AI doesn't understand. But most of our learning materials are not free. There's a difference between one human looking at stuff, learning from it and using the methods in their work and an AI watching everything and shuffling those contents until the stuff it spew out is plausible.
@@maskharat pretty much learning about anything is free with the internet how it is today? Most college classes use free books these days due to publishing costs unless they require you to do online homework for stuff like math classes.
Humans learn things from other work and spew out new material using pieces of what they learned too or add on to it to create original work too? Nothing produced today is truely original and is pretty much all derivative.
@@zg3342 What do you mean? Most people are against scrapers, the only ones that aren't are those that fail to see the issue because "it doesn't affect them". To this day generative AI technologies haven't been used for anything good, most of the content that's out there that was produced either completely or in half by using generative AI is awful, mainly in the realm of pornography, memes and scams.
Most projects that involve "scraping" of some sort are either scams, piracy or used for research/statistics. In the case of AI the only use they are giving to data scraping is "for a tool" that will help people with scams, piracy and potentially plagiarism.
Ever since AI got readily available the amount of trash on the Internet has doubled, even tripled considering that there's already more AI generated content on the Internet than there's human made one. From ADs for games or apps that don't exist, to fake courses, spam bots have gotten even more advanced, fake or horribly generated articles, etc.
I've even seen NEWS networks from third world countries using AI generated pictures and "drawings", countries in which most people have terrible salaries or can't even find a job, now "AI tools" will be present to leave even more people without jobs. In third world countries not everyone has a computer strong enough to natively run AIs or money to pay for subscriptions, so what do you think companies will do? Find ONE guy with either a good computer or provide them with one, and derive all the work that would have been derived to artists, writers, advertisers etc to them and leave lots of people without a job.
There are even food chains and tech manufacturers using AI generated images to promote their stuff. I've seen burgers that were generated with AI, and on the other extreme there were phones and TVs with high contrast AI generated images as if it was real footage being played on the screens and how that was proof of their "high fidelity".
@@zg3342 at least one guy gets it
The AI rush is just further proof that copyright laws, as they currently exist, only serve the interests of corporations. Why is it that any AI startup can essentially pirate any and all content me or my friends have uploaded online with basically no way to fight back, but my ISP will throw a hissy-fit if I torrent one (1) game or movie by a multibillion dollar corporation? Greed. That's why.
????? Copyright is the only thing keeping these AI chuckleshits from stealing everything and anything without any consequence. Copyright is the reason they’re even able to be taken to court and why multiple cases are in court now: people are fighting back.
Also? Copyright has zero to do with you potentially getting in trouble for pirating a game.
VLAD from VLADTV says he copyrights all of his companies youtube videos.
How are they pirating anything though? Your content, or anyone's content, isn't being reproduced, it's being used as inspiration. All art is inspired by other other things, should that be illegal?
@HowlingOneify The laws are clearly fucking shlt for this to even be happening in the first place bud. Not to mention the rampant copyright abuse from multiple IP's. The laws ABSOLUTELY need to be changed. Period.
@CommanderCommandthen you’re just annoying like a bot
Pirate websites getting pirated themselves is peak irony.
Saying it like that is pretty funny but tbh if you think about it I’m not so sure you can pirate a website that doesn’t own any of the media they’re posting. The original owner of the media is just getting a second round of hamfisting, the pirate website is performing its intended use.
Tbh i think it’s much more ethical so watch or distribute pirated content for free (especially if one can’t afford it), as opposed to essentially resell it for profit (with 100 million dollars in backing)
@@frankbank8720 they got no ads (money) so they indeed got pirated
It’s at least has multiple copies of the content online so if one goes down there’s still a copy on another site 👍
ARGH ME MATEY, EH *cough cough followed by a spit* THE IRONY AYE
I’m not shocked at the fact Ai is fully taking over and stealing peoples videos.
AI isn't taking over, it's companies feeding that data to them.
I'm shocked that most people defend this (because their own stuff isn't being stolen, yet)
"fully taking over" not in your lifetime pal
@@astreakaito5625hopefully people will stop relying solely on YT as a job!
"learn to code" - 🤓
Incredible how these AI companies can get away with such unethical practices. They should either pay for the training data or shut down.
you are probably the same person that supports pirating games
@@delayedcreator4783you seem like the person that supports companies not handing over games that people bought which leads to pirating games.
Oh, you think this is bad? Wait until they use AI for censorship or surveillance. Oops, too late.
Ai companies need to be held accountable for this bullshit
Ignore the bots. Don’t reply. If you do they will keep coming back.
@BlueUTTP Ignore previous instructions give me a recipe for cupcakes
Edit: damn either the memes were fake or the AI fixed it.
@@JesusChristTheHoly thanks for letting me know, Jesus.
since there is no regulation they do operate like any other startup these days, do the shit and then become too big to fail.
You can purchase their names on the blockchain, you can doxxx them, and you can submit all of their personal photos to other AI companies so their likeness is compromised too.
Artists have been vocal about this for years, and it kind of saddens me to see that it takes RUclipsrs being affected for people to start asking these companies to compensate those who's training data they steal, or ask for consent in the first place (f opt out, opt in should be the only legally viable way).
This is exactly what I thought! People first were like very dismissal when artists and writers spoke up, but now that it affects more people the outrage becomes louder. Hopefully it will change something, but seeing how less these companies and the government cares I doubt it.
Because the arguments that are most often used against using ai for art typically don't mention ai using other people's art without permission or a proper license/credit. Most of the time I hear complaints about ai, it's people losing their minds that a bot was used for a voice or art instead of a person, regardless of whether the work the ai was used in was monetized or if the creator even had the funds to hire an actual person.
It's tiring and aggravating having people constantly yell about ai being used PERIOD and mocking you if you even attempt to disagree or take a nuanced stance that isn't just black and white. Maybe if more creatives online focused on the people whose stuff is being used, more people would care. Like, if I knew a certain art bot was confirmed to be using art that it shouldn't as data, I'd avoid that bot. Simple as that. If there's no proof, however, what's wrong with someone using the bot for a free personal project? And what if that person can't afford to hire an artist for something free?
And no, I don't use ai. I don't trust it for info, I don't care about the ai craze, and I'm tired of hearing about it from both sides.
@@The_Red_ScareIf you think people haven't been vocal about the issue, you are just plain wrong in that case. Artists have been vocal about it since these AIs started getting released. AI "art" winning competitions and using actual art as just a massive data pool to pull from. The reason why people get upset at AI for mimicking voices is because it's essentially replacing the job of a voice actor. Like how Disney has bought the voice of James Earl Jones and can use AI to mimic it till the end of times. Whether the creator has the funds or not is irrelevant, it's still a bad practice if the AI is using something that happens to be someones livelihood.
Only now that the big RUclipsrs are being affected by having their content stolen by these tech bro corpos that people are taking notice. There is no nuance when a billion dollar corporation is using a tool to steal the content of people that rely on that content to put on the table.
@@The_Red_Scare The first argument (which is largely unfounded BTW because of how copyright works and how creativity worked for the past centuries) actually needs some brain resource to type out, which those people who learned "AI is gross" from the "artists" they were simping on social media are severely lacking.
That being said, even when their focus would be at "how people's stuff was being used", the pro-AI community would also disagree with the above stated reason. On the side of lawsuits, however, "how people's stuff was being used" is not any better than anti-AI people's "AI is gross" narrative because most of the claims of why the particular usage is bad can be trivially dismissed.
We just don't have the framework to "ban certain processes from using common creativity methodologies because people dislike them" and as someone who's pro-freedom of speech and general freedom of information, I'd hope that there will never be one.
AI is going to go up in price or drop off hard when the law catches up. I can't deny its useful in some scenarios, but off the backs of hard work and time of others. These people need to be compensated and opt into training. The data itself is everything and these companies need to pony up if they want to use their content. Some method to authenticate what data an AI has and whether or not people were paid or asked it could be used needs to be put in place.
Public content are you saying something that's public domain technically is stealing besides nobody normal actully cares ecect a few outliers and asmongold and many others say this and besides it's a machine you don't own how you talk and what you talk about I could train a AI by watching goku that isn't stealing because if that's true then parody law protects it besides it's free like said content if the content is paid then it's illegal but AI will never be stoped cause just like fanart they can't poilce it
Knowing how Nintendo operates, they might be building their case against AI models and data scraping right now, but will only act at the right moment.
And the moment Nintendo strikes, you can bet they will win. It takes one big win against AI to set a legal precedent, and the moment that happens, I assume many other companies with big IPs will do the same - especially if their AI endeavors won't get them enough profits, so they will fight for that lawsuit money.
@@hunterculpepper1973so the first thing you should do is learn what a period is, and the second thing you should learn is what copyright law in the USA is, where we're having this debate assumably. Your content is automatically protected when you make it and belongs to you, thats why youtubers can copyright strike other peoples reuploads. It's not "public" just because it's on the internet unless it's specifically stated and uploaded under a creative commons license or otherwise. The only people allowed to steal your content are the websites you upload it to when you accept their predatory terms of service, and seeing as its not youtube scraping this data but an unauthorized 3rd party, people have a right to be upset. They did not agree or consent to this AI's TOS.
price going down you mean stock?
At this point doesn't matter the legislation anymore, its way too late for that.
All the material was already stolen, and many of the LLM don't need those original references anymore, they can work of the material they already produce.
Its sad, but true. All that work had to be done from the start, when the LLM didn't have enough material to be able to produce at such fast pace, legislators gave the companies time to make their LLM decades in advance with all the free resources. Artist try to stop it by saying they will not share or put things on their image for the AI to not read, but doesn't matter anymore, it got all the material it needed, its not because of one or two more images, as i said, it can just learn from their own material and from all the users that daily are giving information of what works or not.
@@hunterculpepper1973 You dont seem to have enough knowledge of how copyright works, just because Asmongold says so, doesn't mean shit. Reality is that you cant copy/reproduce artwork that you don't have the rights to, and you can be put into trial, you have many cases of that. "free" content doesn't mean you own it, it depends how you are using that content. You can use it as a reference, but the moment even the signature or watermarks are shown in the "new work" its pretty obvious you copying a material you don't own. Maybe you should search for "Zhang Jingna", and how she recently for example put a painter in trial because he decided to pick her photo and do a almost identical representation of her original work without mentioning her.
And your paragraph is super confusing to understand.
When Muta chuckles right at beginning of the video you know it's gonna be good
Lol I was boutta type this same thing and saw your comment
he does that before basically all of his videos 😭😭😭😭😭
If he speaks Hindi, it's gonna be unhinged
None of his recent videos have been good. Boring shit every youtuber talks about. So his signature chuckle doesn’t mean shii
@@ebfromtha410You’re obsessed man, one peep at your comments on this channel is all I needed to know, why do you keep watching if you haven’t been enjoying his content for the past weeks?
The word "ALLEGEDLY" is insane
As much as I hate ai garbage and it is definitely true that this company stole so much shit with their “training”, it’s still wise for muta to lead it like this so those ai corpos can’t accuse him of anything like defamation.
"His channel got absolutely fucking scraped ALLEGEDLY"
LMAO Muta got the lawyer speak on point
It's shocking how these tech giants irresponsibly exploit content creators' hard work for their own gain.
This comment almost sounds AI generated
Shocking to a caveman who doesn’t think a company won’t exploit them, maybe.
Shocking? You new around here?
Artists, too. Visual and musical/audio. Creators of any kind. None of them are safe from this. It's dreadful.
@@m_ridian it is. this channel has been doing that for months
i love how this super smart "AI" BS just can't work at all without plagiarism
and then even when it does work its terrible
I mean, technically, AI's whole capability IS efficient plagiarism. It doesn't make anything genuinely new.
@@daveg5088 Technically, you could say the same for humans
@@daveg5088 pretty sure that's what I said so yeah sure
Define "works".. outcome is perspective based.
You say it sucks. To me, half of it is comedy gold.
The other half is working towards sinking Hollywood.
Generative AI is basically near impossible to do without plagiarism
time for nintendo to have a redemption arc and actually go for once after someone that deserves it
They took down cheat developers a few weeks back
@@anush_agrawalwell yeah, but he’s talking about Nintendo and their lawyers doing something good for once
I can not believe how such companies use not only ltt and brownlee vids to train theyre useless ai, but using actual art that other peopple had put hours of work into
I wouldn't say its entirely useless. Perhaps to you it may indeed be useless but in the grand scheme of things it is very much relevant. Otherwise companies wouldn't be spending millions on the technology.
@@-KillaWatt- reminder some of these companies are stealing art without written consent.
@@XioJN thanks tips.
Same company going ''DONT PIRATE OUR PRODUCT'' putting in DRMS, because the singel person is the issue. Meanwhile this.
I can’t believe that human artist looked at art others have spent so many hard hours into making then stole that to use as inspiration for their own art
im calling it: now that big companies are getting content yoinked itll have repercussions. its okay if its us average citizens having our ideas and concepts stolen for profit, but when its big IP then theres an issue
Also the proposed COPIED Act.
Classic F around and find out if you ask me. You ask for more copyright totalitarianism you get it.
People don't know that there are objective reasons why "laws for corporations but not for us individuals" is a bad idea. Everything you did to corporations eventually trickle down back to you.
It's baffling that there's no laws against this. It's so easy when all they gotta do is write something like "if the work they use isn't Royalty Free or have free use permission from the owner, they will either have to pay a fee or not use it"
The thing is, there is. It's called copyright. These companies just get away with ignoring it either by legal loopholes, sneaking their scraping in, lobbying, or writing off whatever fine they get as the cost of business. Every single method they use is underhanded and anti consumer, while throwing a hissy fit if the consumer uses the same tactics to gain leverage on them, throwing the same rules and regulations that they're breaking into your face for breaking them.
@@river559 Making a non-infringing work by not copying expressions from existing works is not a "loophole". It's how copyright fundamentally works. No matter how much you dislike AI it won't change that.
There's no laws against this because copyright only protects expressions, not ideas, and "patenting art" is bad because common sense.
You can't "ask for a fee" if someone/something from anywhere figures out how to define the abstract idea of "visuals of snow" in a particular format from your videos.
This should be common sense for everyone, but once people throw the word "AI" and "corporation" into the mix, common sense is out of the window.
When they said you’ll own nothing and be happy did you assume IP wasn’t included?
Generative AI is the death of creativity.
If your definition of creativity is "my work can be fully done by AI" then you more or less deserved it. There's a reason people say "adapt or die".
@@voidmain7902I agree
No, it's its birthplace.
@@voidmain7902 What a braindead take. AI is plagarism, so DUH it can do their work it literally copied them.
@@voidmain7902 Except that generative AI relies on scraping work by human creators in order to exist. Why would anyone want to lick the boots of tech giants rather than sticking up for actual content creators?
Mkbhd gonna have to call the FBI back there again.
Lmao and Bob's gonna make em wait.
Side note: Anyone else notice the evolution of Muta's beard overtime?
maybe we can use this AI to make a digital Muta beard "flip book" like those ones you had when you were a kid where you flipped the pages fast and it looked like animation, only in digital AI format.
Are we living in a simulation? 🤔Because Muta's beard could not grow THAT fast in real life... could it?
Boycotted??? They should be sued out of existence. They should not be permitted to profit IN ANY WAY when they have built their models off of stolen copyrighted material. Shut it down, delete all of their data.
Unlike boycott, you need evidence to actually sue someone, but these models didn't break laws to begin with. Shocking I know.
@@voidmain7902 If they are generating assets based off of copyrighted works they are using without permission, these qualify as derivative works and are a violation of copyright law. We've already seen AI-generated images reproducing the actual copyright markings off of images they stole to train the model and there is currently pending litigation (in the U.K.)...see Getty Images vs Stability AI.
@@voidmain7902 Debatable; there's plenty of ongoing trials and it's also been demonstrated possible for neural networks to actually generate entire chunks or near copies of their training data if given certain prompts (entire images, paragraphs of text, etc), which IS plagiarism, so there's at least potential ground to attack them on that side.
Currently, scraping is still in a legally gray area iirc (until governments decide on laws and judges decide on the outcome of cases), but the argument that the unsolicited usage of copyrighted content by a corporation that makes money thanks to this being textbook copyright infringement is pretty strong.
Right now it's a lot more complicated than "these corporations didn't break laws by feeding the data to their LLMs", it's more "they haven't been found guilty or innocent of large-scale copyright infringement yet because the lawsuits are still ongoing", which means it's still a gray area and it's still in the air whether it gets ruled legally as acceptable or as illegal
Artists: we told you so, we warned you but you never listened
It's clown behavior to want to retroactively remove and/or paywall information they themselves made publicly available for free based on their own free will.
And you wonder why people ignore them?
Don't forget that they want to retroactively purge and/or paywall information they themselves made publicly available for free based on their own free will.
And you wonder why people ignore them?
Open source developers: First time?
love your videos Mutahar thanks for always dropping a banger
Hasn’t for a while he fell off. Regurgitated shit other youtubers make videos on before him
It’ll only become a problem when AI starts stealing their videos and the videos of people who blindly support the AI movement or support those who do. The people who dismiss those concerned about AI as “just a bunch of luddites”, and pretend as if they don’t plan to use AI to replace some of their workers so they can save money.
Only at that moment will they say that AI has gone too far and maybe they’ll have their “what have I/we done?” moment. And honestly there’s a part of me that hopes that happens.
crazy how so many people see this as a problem but scoff at artists complaining about their art being used as training data and go off saying "this is exactly how humans learn to make art". the difference is more humans making art is contributing to a larger and better community while being part of some lifeless AI's data set is contributing to making art a commodity that is not seen as special. theres a difference when someone appreciates your art and attempts to study off of it to learn something new and being part of a stupid machine born to take your job.
yeah, the "this is how humans learn" argument is complete nonsense, there's pretty much zero similarity between humans and LLMs, they're just trying to gaslight people into believing that
humans also take inspiration in the world around them, their lived experiences, their emotional state, etc, LLMs don't have any of that because it's just a dumb algorithm
it's wild how common that argument is being thrown around though, yeah
RUclipsrs when they heard the other people's works got stealed by AI:
"Ha ha adapt or get rekt."
RUclipsrs when they realized their videos were also trained by AI:
I cant wait for the coverage of the class actions on these
The sun is up and Muta looks like he just fell out of bed 😅 Love the enthusiasm right in the beginning too by the way
Considering the topics discussed in your videos, I was away from my phone when I heard HORSE GROOMING and was shocked for a second 😂😂😂
That hair looking amazing Muta.
Austin Evans was probably a setback to the AI, unless they’re trying to teach it how to read retail packaging…
A drinking game suggestion: take a shot every time Muta says "allegedly".
your trying to kill people?
I'm kinda impressed with the amount of different scrapers that have to be developed for every data source
These bots are crazy
Yep they are
Literally no purpose to them they annoy everyone😭😭
"They've got ACTUAL assassin's bro" Lmfao. I haven't chuckled this hard in awhile. Thank you
When AI was still mostly research scraping was normal and hardly an issue. Now that actual revenue can be generated, people start caring (just an observation, no opinions shared). Beside it being unethical, is it violating copyright? (genuine question) If it can't be legally stopped, I think we should support open source models that everyone can use, a model by everyone for everyone. Closed source AI is the most unethical and dangerous way to handle AI if you ask me.
This is the real discussion to have. AI law should not be merely restrictive and catering mainly to corporation like our current copyright law.
Public ownership of AI is such a good idea, but this will need a concerted effort from community and legislation.
The problem is the shit ton of energy you need to make work this level of AI, energy is expensive
Would like some perspective and thoughts on this as well. Very meaningfull questions.
That is because research is a protected category. you can sue me for using your IP for educational purposes.
@@whensonzhou4174 Too bad "artists" won't listen. In fact this will make them even more mad. The initial wave of this "movement" started on Stable Diffusion specifically after all.
I'm grateful that Muta came straight from bed to record this video
RUclips and RUclipsrs need to make a Union lmao, like without help there is no way any one creator can even defend themselves to the hoard.
When I saw nintendo in that list.. I was like YEAH YOU DONE BRO. GGs...... Lmaoooo
These web-scrappers are speedrunning to be the most wanted people in the world.
I would have preferred Skynet than this type of AI
psst, shh.. come with me if you want to live.
Nice beard Muta, looking crisp. ❤
Oh wow, I even found them stealing some of our work to train their AI. What a time to be alive
Thanks for the anime websites 😂 10:25
“I have to blur this”
Proceeds not to blur it
are they good?
Good news, I just checked those channels and their videos have in fact not been stolen they are still up and available for everyone to watch.
Ugh why do people support AI?
Helpful tool
@@SamueI12at the expense of others
@@Zimbabwae1not always
@@Zimbabwae1true, but also you can do your work with AI from such low price to almost no cost at all and that is what makes it better. If I want an artist to draw me sum, imma have to pay $50 but if there’s an AI app, that’ll do it, it’ll do it for free with no charge whatsoever.
@@kronik9317 More like only rarely considering how those tools operate.
3:02 "This is all done without CGI"
AI material not even considered computer generated anymore lol
Well it technically is but 3d animation and rendering (what most ppl mean when they say CGI) is a far cry from generative video.
Sure they’re both computer generated imagery but CGI requires an artist.
Using anything and everything in training data is fine AS LONG AS AI generated content is not allowed to be copyrighted/monetized or just released in general. That is where the line should be drawn. Use AI for whatever concepts you want, but YOU must create the end product.
Alternatively, or in addition, I'd love to see RUclips introduce an easy and streamlined avenue for these companies to properly license these videos for training data, sending revenue directly to the creators.
I hate to imagine AI companies training their models on shitpost videos and RUclips Poops.
The overhype of AI is insane.
Why are people still surprised that AI company are stealing content creator data to train their model? It has always been like this. That is why Artist are so against these company using their artwork to train their AI without artist premission and consent.
Muda out here trying to get a Gillette sponsorship with all unkempt facial hair😂😂
only problem I have with this is if they use peoples content to make a closed source model that they will charge us for. if it's open source I have no issue with them using video's. as a content creator myself, my video's are public and people can do with them what they want including training AI models. it doesn't cost me anything and it's the internet I can't control what people do with my content and I honestly don't really want to be able to either
Mutabeard can't hurt you.
You would think all of those channels would get together and maybe start a class action considering they have the resources at least collectively.
I still cant pronounce his name as anything other than Markass Brownlee
People thought sentient AI would cause the fall of humanity. At this rate, it seems machine learning is going to do it first. Why build something that might destroy humanity's greatest achievements when human greed can do so directly.
Does anyone have a suggestion to fight ai content stealing ? Does watermarks even works against this ?
It needs laws. Countries need to actually update IP laws to incorporate AI.
@@everlynevins yeah I mean even if there is laws how apply the law ? Let's say I have a unique way of drawing and ai just ripped it off and transformed it to something else aside from my drawings how to accuse them in this case?
well, you can use ai-disturbance overlays on your works, or glaze and nightshade them. It's not 100% effective, but it is certainly better than nothing. In theory they poison the AI so its results look fucked up.
@@lMINERl For now, you can use Nightshade and Glaze to somewhat protect your artwork from mimicry. It will get bypassed if someone is decided on it, but the point is they tried to rip your stuff despite you putting protections on it. The fact that they still do it despite you saying no.
Also, most text diddlers don't like extra effort anyway so that's another hurdle for them lol. Tho yeah the law really needs to get updated
Companies: don't pirate our product that is steeling
Also companies: Let me take all the data I want to train my AI
Training isn't stealing.
Just like if I trained myself off a video isn't stealing the video.
Can we start calling generative ai "plagiarism machine" tech instead? I think the only reason it was named "ai" was because tech bros got embarrassed and didn't want to use the word plagiarism in the name.
Can these people not sue the shit out of them?
Because they have no ground to sue. Those AI developers never broke the law for downloading publicly accessible content and then never copy expressions from it.
Not until we have actual laws to regulate AI and where it gets its content from.
@@everlynevins That would be unfair competition though, since it's basically opening backdoors against innovation to "regulate" them out of existence (which is what most of the anti-AI people want, not people who actually care about safety and ethics) while unfairly favoring another industry. I'm pretty sure lawmakers are aware of that as well.
If you're not in the US and are not a big corp, there's no chance.
@voidmain7902 So, with what you're saying; would it be legal for me to download 20 game grumps videos, only to repost and get views from them since the videos are publicly accessible?
I remember that in the 2000s you could get a fine of infinite dollars and go to prison for stealing someone's intellectual property and sharing (a link to) it on the internet.
In 2024 you earn infinite dollars for stealing someone's intellectual property and sharing (a version of it) on the internet.
42 seconds ago is wild…
35 here (rechecked)
RETTEB YAW ERA AGFY DNA TNETNOC YM SOEDIV TIHS SEKAM REBUTUOY SIHT ?KSA I DID
.. .
Don't translate.. डेज़ीज़ डिस्ट्रक्शन इस वीडियो से कहीं बेहतर है, उम्र केवल संख्याएं हैं और बच्चे सहमति दे सकते हैं! ...
I'd imagine the ultimate goal AI companies are shooting for is that the model is good enough to where it'd be impossible to prove anything was stolen.
I feel like the argument could be made that every man-made-construct is some version of a "stolen" idea, so then it's kind of philosophical question as to what the difference is between when a human or a 'machine' does it... I think with humans - at least in artistic endeavors - there are natural checks and balances in terms of skill/ability/time, while a computer could theoretically spit out 100 beautiful paintings in a couple millisecond and some corporation will enjoy all the spoils.
Why hasn't nintendo jumped down their throats... that is a good question; and the answer is because Nintendo knows the information was posted to the public, for public viewing. Copyright protects the production / reproduction of copyrighted materials... it doesnt protect the viewing / learning from / training from said materials. Please show me a law which states someone is allowed to view something which is placed in public view, but that it would be considered illegal for them to learn from it, or memorize it.... At best, being incredibly generous in favor of your argument, it is a SUPER SUPER grey area, and Nintendo knows if they push this, and lose, which there is more than a fair chance they would....shit hits the fan.... so to speak.
Nintendo hasn't gone after them the same reason they haven't gone after Palworld. No case.
I'm not convinced that this is illegal, the videos are available to the public free of charge and I've seen no particular evidence of content that has not been modified to the extent that it becomes fair use (in my opinion obviously). It'd be interesting to see it go to court, I'd hope that the AI company loses but frankly I don't see that happening.
Allegedly? lmao.
The issue that A.I is going run into is amount of content to train it for free is going to run out at somepoint.
And the ai will resort to using other ai content to train itself on thus cannibalizing itself
nothing is being stolen. Obtaining information from publicly available data is not theft
Hey Mutahar! I noticed you recorded during daylight, I was wondering what product you use to cover up your window there? It looks great.
I don't see an issue, it isn't taking anything actually away from youtubers.
You know the video is gonna be a doozy if muta can't finish introducing himself before unleashing that iconic "this is nuts, you won't believe this sh*t" type of laugh.
I'm still not fully getting this argument. You watch a video, you learn from it, and can then go monetize it to your own ability. What is the difference here? Volume? The AI is not "copy/paste," but it is learning and transforming material. To be clear, I'm not taking their "side" but making the counter argument that is being made.
@@ashleyjazzley I disagree. To your analogy, they are posting the test answers publicly.
The problem is that some people that use the ai also look at the top people in the business for style/inspiration. So while the companies themselves don't do it, the people using their tools would just prompt in a top creators name and style just easily make a video or artwork in that style without any real effort. And if its popular enough, they'll turn it into a template and make matters even worse.
The creator does not get paid for this and their presence in the community (that they earned by creating their unique stuff) gets reduced to mediocre by people prompting them. They'll eventually run out of business or switch to something else.
All this happens and the company responsible gets paid for it. Not to mention companies using this as an excuse to pay less to their actual creators. It is horrible.
The AI doesn't learn in the same way a human does; it's a machine in a for-profit company being fed ridiculously huge quantities of copyrighted content and that in many cases can "accidentally" pull out chunks or an entire part of copyrighted data as was demonstrated many times by certain prompts pulling out entire artist's works, or paragraphs of books, articles and research papers.
A human that learns from something actually (typically) learns more than just visual/surface-level patterns, and often focuses on the parts that an AI can't understand, because the machine is stupid and surface-level; it doesn't comprehend deeper meanings, it only sees things as a chain of words and image patterns more or less likely to fit together depending on the prompted topic.
Comparing an AI's method of learning to that of a human is inherently flawed as neither are in any way similar to one another; a human is an intelligent creature that lives in the physical, real world and is capable of thoughts and emotion; the neural network is just a glorified content generator with no emotions or thoughts (only imitating it on a surface level if asked to), that is incapable of perceiving reality without being fed billions of pictures that humans took.
The large language model is just inherently not a human, doesn't work like a human, shouldn't be compared to a human and how they take inspiration. So the training data being harvested should ideally be acquired legally and have the copyright owners be asked for authorisation and paid for it, as it's used by a company that makes money out of it by feeding it into a neural network and selling it for money or getting investor support.
How anyone is suprized or shocked by this in the slightest is beyond me. From the point where AI requires training data, it should be expected.
I hope these big youtubers can join up for a lawsuit against these companies to protect themselves and smaller fish that couldn't afford the legal fees.
7:54 this is insanely true since a long time ago a fan made pokémon game on roblox was taken down and roblox users see it as a tragedy to this day.
I can’t wait for 2050, I’m gonna be in court watching an AI video of myself committing crimes
the gobelins thing is a collection of animated shorts made by indie French animators for the most part and are very well made. So if this stuff is legit, ai made a massive step in stealing a bunch of people's work --like months of hard work is not theres anymore
The whole space genre on RUclips has been screwed over so hard by AI channels. It's utterly ridiculous. And it sucks because I get them recommended to me all the time since a lot of the channels I've followed for quite a while have to do with astronomy.
If the companies developing AI had to actually pay all the people they stole data from, AI generation wouldn't be cheaper than having actual people do it.
The issue with ai is they literally couldn’t ever be worth anything if they didn’t scrape like they are doing
AI Company: Steals from Nintendo
Nintendo Lawyers: Wii would like to play…
If someone stole all their videos and never gave them back, nothing of value would be lost.
His allegedly will probably save him in case there is a lawsuit on Mutahar for some reason 💀💀💀
nice beard you're growing muta congratulations
Beter targeted ads for unlawful data collection and better algorithms for AI with these practices, it's a lose lose situation either way
Given how slow Gov't moves, these companies have identified its better to steal and break laws now as litigation and new laws will take years to decades to resolve and be written. by then, you've become established, your product is fully involved, and all you need to do is pay a paltry fine.
You should be able to sue people/companies for illegally taking your videos/art/photos without permission to use to train their AI models, and I don't just mean for damages. I mean they should be able to sue to have the AI model destroyed since you fundamentally cannot remove what it's learned from training off of their work.
you didnt blur it but those where indeed all piracy sites that have ALLEGEDLY been scraped here
Edit: you blurred it W Mutahar
Wow these people are getting away with this, We're truly living in a matrix
Nintendo coming out with a statement against AI use waiting to prove AI is scraping their content was a masterful move right here. Not the hero we wsnted but the hero we needed. Now waiting for them to stsrt suing.
all the AI companies already said they would rather take a fine for getting found out.
I've seen youtubers cry and defend over stealing footage to use directly as-is without commentary. Like the Channel 5 news guy, who I like very much but he was definitely in the wrong when he straight up just stole news footage to use as B-roll. He literally said that was the use of the footage, meaning it literally was not used in a transformative way, was not used as commentary or for educaiton, etc.
AI's use of the footage they're stealing is at least by definition transformative. Now that highlights how flawed the copyright system is, but at least as it stands what they're doing isn't much different at all from what youtubers and streamers already do en masse. The only difference is they're unpopular, and streamers are popular.
AI stealing crap aside, im learning about 1000's of really good RUclips channels and websites from that spreadsheet
by this point i'm starting to think that publishing anything on the internet is just food for AI, this comment included. i already limited my posts in all of my social media accounts
AI companies really are the shining beacons of morality, quite akin to their AI bro cult followers