Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when you create a produce in the employ of a company, that all your product belongs to them. So they are free to do with you creative results as they please.
Ain't saying it's rights, but if you understand that going in to the deal, then that is the way it is. It's like someone in a subdivision wanting to sue over the housing board forcing them to take a flag down when the bylaws clearly say that you can't fly a flag in front of you house. You agreed to the deal up front. It's not right, but that's what you agreed to.
AI is going to put many, many people out of work. I read somewhere where there is no longer a market for song writers, especially things like jingles for advertisements because AI can do it in an instant. Poetry, who need a poet when AI can produce something better that the best poet in seconds. How about writing a news article? Nope, just give AI the facts, and it can write a perfect article. Maybe an author, well AI can write a book as good as any human, probably better. So maybe you think you make a living as a pharmacist, or doctor. Soon AI will be able to handle most of that better then humans.
That's not a small task. You are talking about rewriting the entire work for hire legal code. There honestly is no difference between allowing another human to take over your position, or an AI. The fact that an AI is better and faster at mimicry really doesn't change anything.
The company paid you for your time while you were working there. You have no rights to work product beyond that compensation. Trying to legislate anything else would be nearly impossible at this point. It would be akin to doing away with employer/employee relationships altogether.
Arguably not a bad thing, but I don't see it happening.
Like he said, if you create for hire, your product belongs to your employer. Otherwise, what are they paying for? Even technical products can be patented by your employer.
I agree, especially if and when the work on the patent has been performed outside of scheduled hours. It is especially galling when some outside entity becomes aware of the patent and tries to approach the company for the purpose of collaboration on a realization---and the company doesn't even call them back. And then lets the patents lapse. I am contemplating the publication of all my other invention-related work, simply because I don't believe in hiding my light under a bushel.
but it's like they're not only taking what you make, they're also creating a profile on the creator and taking that. It's like a form of plagarism! They're using you to train your replacement. Idk it just seems wrong
Any artist (or creator) for hire is always subject to his work being used not according to his wishes, or repurposed, or revised by others. Someone who builds a house for hire gets no say in what becomes of the house after it is turned over to its owners. You need to readjust your conception of what is right and wrong when free trade is involved. And have more confidence in the originality of creators.
That is exactly what the entertainment industry is squabbling about. People know they can lose the rights to use of their own voices and images. for all people in all fields, the question is, will all our relevance be lost. Elon Musk has delved into this at length. It is scary and folks don't want to address it. But if humans become less relevant as workers, then that can mean universal income is unavoidable (if the alternative is the population becoming destitute) He is not speaking like a communist, just a realist. An ostrich he is not. If we avoid succumbing to the globalists we will figure out a way for everyone to be ok without "paying people to do nothing" (greatly magnified welfare system). The idea of government assistance has the stigma of selling out or being told how to live. It depends upon the terms. There is no shame at all, in receiving social security. Except the amount is too low. That, is shameful.
As an independent fine art professional I avoid using AI. Hanging on tight to traditional means of creating. But I feel like a dinosaur sitting on a little island surrounded by shark invested waters. Lots of little islands like me though. All artists are having to make this choice.
Yes. It's called work for hire, and every employee agrees to it. There is no difference if you turn the work product over to an AI or to another employee.
Buy AI can hallucinate and give wrong info. This has been shown for legal work in court. So how well would that work for medicine? I see lawsuits also coming up in the future (without the help of AI).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when you create a produce in the employ of a company, that all your product belongs to them. So they are free to do with you creative results as they please.
Ain't saying it's rights, but if you understand that going in to the deal, then that is the way it is. It's like someone in a subdivision wanting to sue over the housing board forcing them to take a flag down when the bylaws clearly say that you can't fly a flag in front of you house. You agreed to the deal up front. It's not right, but that's what you agreed to.
AI is going to put many, many people out of work. I read somewhere where there is no longer a market for song writers, especially things like jingles for advertisements because AI can do it in an instant. Poetry, who need a poet when AI can produce something better that the best poet in seconds. How about writing a news article? Nope, just give AI the facts, and it can write a perfect article. Maybe an author, well AI can write a book as good as any human, probably better. So maybe you think you make a living as a pharmacist, or doctor. Soon AI will be able to handle most of that better then humans.
We are fucked, it what that spells out.
Then a provision should be made in the legal code to grant a creator the royalties to their creations if they're used to feed an AI
That's not a small task. You are talking about rewriting the entire work for hire legal code. There honestly is no difference between allowing another human to take over your position, or an AI. The fact that an AI is better and faster at mimicry really doesn't change anything.
The company paid you for your time while you were working there. You have no rights to work product beyond that compensation. Trying to legislate anything else would be nearly impossible at this point. It would be akin to doing away with employer/employee relationships altogether.
Arguably not a bad thing, but I don't see it happening.
Like he said, if you create for hire, your product belongs to your employer. Otherwise, what are they paying for? Even technical products can be patented by your employer.
That hasn't exactly been fair, either. Saying this as a researcher with patent work.
I agree, especially if and when the work on the patent has been performed outside of scheduled hours. It is especially galling when some outside entity becomes aware of the patent and tries to approach the company for the purpose of collaboration on a realization---and the company doesn't even call them back. And then lets the patents lapse. I am contemplating the publication of all my other invention-related work, simply because I don't believe in hiding my light under a bushel.
but it's like they're not only taking what you make, they're also creating a profile on the creator and taking that. It's like a form of plagarism! They're using you to train your replacement. Idk it just seems wrong
Any artist (or creator) for hire is always subject to his work being used not according to his wishes, or repurposed, or revised by others. Someone who builds a house for hire gets no say in what becomes of the house after it is turned over to its owners. You need to readjust your conception of what is right and wrong when free trade is involved. And have more confidence in the originality of creators.
That is exactly what the entertainment industry is squabbling about. People know they can lose the rights to use of their own voices and images. for all people in all fields, the question is, will all our relevance be lost. Elon Musk has delved into this at length. It is scary and folks don't want to address it. But if humans become less relevant as workers, then that can mean universal income is unavoidable (if the alternative is the population becoming destitute) He is not speaking like a communist, just a realist. An ostrich he is not. If we avoid succumbing to the globalists we will figure out a way for everyone to be ok without "paying people to do nothing" (greatly magnified welfare system). The idea of government assistance has the stigma of selling out or being told how to live. It depends upon the terms. There is no shame at all, in receiving social security. Except the amount is too low. That, is shameful.
Agree.
But, but, we all learned to code!! /s
Code! I've never been able to get past "Hello World".
IKR I can say "Hello world" in seventeen different languages. ..working on assembly now... HAHA
Kek!!
As an independent fine art professional I avoid using AI. Hanging on tight to traditional means of creating. But I feel like a dinosaur sitting on a little island surrounded by shark invested waters. Lots of little islands like me though. All artists are having to make this choice.
Yes. It's called work for hire, and every employee agrees to it. There is no difference if you turn the work product over to an AI or to another employee.
The company owns everything you produce.
Buy AI can hallucinate and give wrong info. This has been shown for legal work in court. So how well would that work for medicine? I see lawsuits also coming up in the future (without the help of AI).