Science & Technology
How AI Models Steal Creative Work — and What to Do About It | Ed Newton-Rex | TED
Generative AI is built on three key resources: people, compute and data. While companies invest heavily in the first two, they often use unlicensed creative work as training data without permission or payment — a practice that pits AI against the very creators it relies on. AI expert Ed Newton-Rex has a solution: licensing. He…
Science & Technology
Why Taskrabbit’s Founder Prioritizes Diversity Early │ Build Mode Podcast
As a founder or any team builder, diversity is best built at the start. As Taskrabbit founder Leah Solivan learned, procrastination leads to weaker teams and a harder effort later. We dive into all of her expert tips for builders and founders in the latest episode of our podcast Build Mode right here:
Science & Technology
Are orbital data centers all hype, or an actual AI infrastructure solution? l Equity Podcast
Tech companies are racing to build data centers in space, pitching orbital compute as the next frontier for AI infrastructure, even as the technical and economic realities remain far from clear. Add in OpenAI’s massive $122 billion round and Bluesky’s latest AI backlash, and the message is clear: The future of AI is being shaped…
CNET
Apple at 50: Sharing Our Biggest Apple Memories
With Apple turning 50 this week, Bridget Carey goes down memory lane with her CNET teammates on what it was like to cover the iconic company and how the products shaped our lives. Read more on CNET.com Apple’s 50-Year Legacy of Product Innovation, Through CNET’s Lens 0:15 CNET reporters share their favorite Apple memories 0:22…
Why Taskrabbit’s Founder Prioritizes Diversity Early │ Build Mode Podcast
NASA’s Artemis II Lifts Off | Bloomberg Artemis II Special 4/1/2026
Are orbital data centers all hype, or an actual AI infrastructure solution? l Equity Podcast
Nitya Subramanian: Products and Protocol
Sleep Expert Answers Questions From Twitter ???? | Tech Support | WIRED
Ways you can help Black Lives Matter movement (links, orgs, and more) ????????
Why Taskrabbit’s Founder Prioritizes Diversity Early │ Build Mode Podcast
NASA’s Artemis II Lifts Off | Bloomberg Artemis II Special 4/1/2026
Are orbital data centers all hype, or an actual AI infrastructure solution? l Equity Podcast
-
Science & Technology6 years agoNitya Subramanian: Products and Protocol
-
People & Blogs4 years agoSleep Expert Answers Questions From Twitter ???? | Tech Support | WIRED
-
CNET6 years agoWays you can help Black Lives Matter movement (links, orgs, and more) ????????
-
Wired7 years agoHow This Guy Became a World Champion Boomerang Thrower | WIRED
-
Wired7 years agoNeuroscientist Explains ASMR’s Effects on the Brain & The Body | WIRED
-
Wired7 years agoWhy It’s Almost Impossible to Solve a Rubik’s Cube in Under 3 Seconds | WIRED
-
Wired7 years agoFormer FBI Agent Explains How to Read Body Language | Tradecraft | WIRED
-
CNET6 years agoSurface Pro 7 review: Hello, old friend ????
@youssefsaad34
March 19, 2025 at 12:24 pm
Artificial intelligence is like a person who has read all the information on the internet and derived from it what is considered lawful. So why would we consider it to be breaking the rules?
@shekhmohammedzahid7862
March 19, 2025 at 12:41 pm
Ram Gopal Varma 😅
@ianblyth986
March 19, 2025 at 1:13 pm
I can pretty well sum up my whole impression on the state of AI as this frontier fully appreciated by only one sort of creative individual; the financial ones. And there is nothing that a frontier disdains more than a boundary. All the data in the world that the most financially creative people have been constantly mining and exploring ways to capitalize on, and AI has arguably been the most expansive. It kind of begs the question, what real (pun intended) incentive is there to train AI in admittedly more ethical but costly ways – particularly as competition to engineer ever more robust models – will only keep getting fiercer?
And if I was to pose what I think should be a rapidly more pertinent question; amongst all the other considerations, as the demanding environmental impact of AI is only likely to compound with its prevalence, is AI really the frontier the world can tolerate?
@Valjurai
March 19, 2025 at 1:38 pm
Letting ‘more people be creative’ has to involve freeing them from death by lack of income first.
@Valjurai
March 19, 2025 at 1:40 pm
Also, one of my wife’s better friends is an accomplished artist who is now losing contracts due to ‘why should I have to pay a person because I can get AI now?’ And yes, her name came up in the leak of those the midjourney model had been trained on.
@leonidfro8302
March 19, 2025 at 2:32 pm
@@Valjurai”artist” became a career only in last century, while people making are for hundreds of thousands years. Too much entitlement.
@Valjurai
March 19, 2025 at 2:36 pm
Ya, a fan of feudalism and slavery,@@leonidfro8302, eh? Entitlement…
@offchan
March 19, 2025 at 2:43 pm
This is a battle of value system. The solution is not as simple as licensing. That’s just a solution that is based on one value system. By advocating for licensing, you are still antagonizing the people who value maximizing productivity gain of society anyway. The real question is not whether to do licensing. It’s the question of how you reconcile conflicting value systems that people believe. And none of the value systems is better than the other. We still have work to do to the reconcilation and it’s not an easy battle. This tension will remain for quite a while. I think the people who have created laws in the past struggle with stuff like this as well.
@thecaliforniadream1973
March 19, 2025 at 2:43 pm
He’s wrong they only need 3 things. There is a 4th — energy.
@rajkumarlakra2269
March 19, 2025 at 2:56 pm
Intellectual property remains to the creator and not the mimmicker. AI is not training on the data. Its mimmicking the data. Recreating vs Regeneration. If the idea belongs to the artist then right should also belong to the artist.
@lumpytapioca5062
March 19, 2025 at 5:12 pm
Since the first broadcast of music on radio in 1906 by Canadian-born physicist Reginald Fessenden,
we’ve accumulated more recorded music than the current planet’s population could listen to in several lifetimes.
But lawyers and industry weasels, who didn’t write or play a note, got rich by keeping it all behind a paywall.
Now, they’re trying to convince us that they support the musicians?
The only problem I have with AI music generation is that it is just another paywall around music that they took no part in.
Does it have Paul Simon levels of songwriting ability? No. But neither do you.
@HenryPhD
March 19, 2025 at 2:57 pm
I totally agree. Licenses.
@Purified-Bananas
March 19, 2025 at 2:58 pm
The jobs for creatives are/will be harmed, with or without licensing. Licensing just makes the loss of income less steep (which is a good thing, but doesn’t ultimately solve the problem). Once you have enough licensed data to train the models, the harm will be there – people are still going to use the AI trained on licensed data to create their music or graphics, instead of hiring a musician or a graphics designer.
@BonnieShadow33
March 19, 2025 at 7:19 pm
I suspect you’re unfortunately correct…
@ijash-yt
March 19, 2025 at 3:07 pm
face it. this is just how technology works.
@MikeH_AI
March 19, 2025 at 3:27 pm
The irony of the guy working at stability 🤣
@biddiw
March 19, 2025 at 4:37 pm
had worked…
@hide_and_go_sikh
March 19, 2025 at 3:31 pm
Cut me a check.
@chefray162
March 19, 2025 at 3:41 pm
This is kinda dumb and selfish. Another grab for money at the very high risk of having under development AI which leads to poor AI and a dystopian future where no one can create. Everyone wants something out of everything and it just slows stuff down. AI creative work will be better. Find something else to do. You’re not limited.
@ShiblyNo.9
March 19, 2025 at 3:47 pm
Please add Bangla language
@snebold
March 19, 2025 at 4:03 pm
AI companies are never going to license the data when it’s available for free. My view is that this type of training is fair use. That sounds harsh, but this data isn’t available to only AI companies to use. Any human can train themselves on this data if they’d like. The assertion that artists are competing with these AI systems, is true to some extent, but it’s also true that those artists can use these AI systems as well. Furthermore, while there may be AI-generated songs that reach the top 10 on some charts, most art AI produces requires a human to judge its quality. The art that truly resonates with humans is art that expresses what it means to be human. AI can’t do that because it’s not human.
@lumpytapioca5062
March 19, 2025 at 5:22 pm
You sure about that?
Movies aren’t real life, they’re artificial life, yet they can strongly effect human emotion at the press of a button.
Disparaging AI assisted music is like thinking a photograph will steal part of your soul.
@ContactBrand
March 19, 2025 at 4:33 pm
My coworker would love to add “AI uses a lot of water.”
@lumpytapioca5062
March 19, 2025 at 4:53 pm
AI doesn’t hurt musicians. It’s just another tool. The same was said about synthesizers and samplers.
The same was said about phonograph records and photography and Photoshop when they first appeared.
What it hurts is the Music Industry, which is not the same thing as musicians.
Is it cheating to use digital reverb instead of a tiled room? Drum loops in a DAW? EQ and compressor/limiters?
How about movie reviews? Books? YouTubers paid for describing something that they themselves didn’t create and had no hand in?
This is just Big Money worrying they might lose a nickel, and parasite lawyers seeking a payday.
@hybridroid
March 19, 2025 at 6:05 pm
Truth is, we opened a pandora box that cannot be closed nor regulated. The damages are beyond our control although that was quite predictable.
@moony_be4r
March 19, 2025 at 6:21 pm
The world would really be a different place today if big AI had simply asked for consent. Simple.
@christophercooper6731
March 19, 2025 at 6:58 pm
Won’t the *end result* be the same?
Tech bros making all the money after they’ve trained their models to _create._
After that they won’t need any truly creative human beings to create anything truly novel.
People will simply buy the _creations_ from the tech bros.
Faster and cheaper.
The drop in quality and the moral implications will not matter to them.
@olegtrushin
March 19, 2025 at 8:41 pm
The problem i have with ai is that i don’t really care by whom was the thing i enjoyed made. I don’t think it will kill anything. Like, you can listen to a piano song, and i can try to learn it myself. No amount of ai at any stage in development will change that doing things by yourself is simply cooler and better. But i can’t draw for example, and can’t commission an artist every time. But the idea of a niche meme still exists in my head. That’s where ai and clever prompt might help.
There were a couple of months where people were generating cities, but if you squint your eyes you would see a rude word.
Or now ai politicians playing video games.
The problem is not the technology, but how we use it
@homerdk77
March 19, 2025 at 8:59 pm
You cant do anything about it. It would require all ai taken down OR all creations taken offline. If you can see it, the ai has already seen it.
@petershir
March 19, 2025 at 9:21 pm
Training AI and training humans is identical in my opinion. At least it is very similar. I read a book, I hear a song, I eavesdrop on a conversation, listen to a comedy routine on tv or consume a free YouTube video. It’s all input. Then my brain knows what it knows because I have experienced all these inputs. Now, do I have the license all those imports and pay a fee for everything I hear and see? If the data is premium, if it’s privileged, precious or secret, don’t release it. Stealing is wrong but learning from someone else should not be compared to theft. I will not going to delve into copyright issues, I am merely thinking about learning. Whether it’s human or AI the process is similar.
@iPodFayne
March 19, 2025 at 10:28 pm
Ted Talks’ endless train of pro-AI slop has been so tiresome and disappointing (to the point it felt like they were being paid to advertise AI). It’s refreshing and hopeful to see something that actually addresses its issues and lack of ethics.
@BicBoi1984
March 19, 2025 at 11:00 pm
AI art is divine punishment for artists being annoying on Twitter.
You can’t stop progress but I do enjoy the impotence signaling 😂
@CleoCat75
March 20, 2025 at 12:35 am
All training data for AI should be free to use for the betterment of humans. There’s no competition with the AI and it’s training data. Software piracy has happened for decades and yet the gaming industry has exploded and is a trillion dollar ecosystem. Somehow the game industry figured it out. People will always buy real art if they want.
@kenromero9236
March 20, 2025 at 12:56 am
It’s too late. The genie is out of the bottle.
@vng
March 20, 2025 at 2:02 am
There is also the downstream impact. When AI competes with its data source, human creators are no longer able to earn a living, which becomes a disincentive to the next generation of people from wanting to join a certain line of creative work. Why bother to become a good artist, if there is no hope of earning a living as one since every other person in the world can easily create something similar using generative AI? Go even further, and when AI completely drives out the competition from an entire line, and there is no human alternative, then whoever owns the AI can charge whatever they want, because they have a monopoly over that skill set.
@nathanngumi8467
March 20, 2025 at 4:28 am
Word.
@1minutelifehacks938
March 20, 2025 at 4:55 am
stop crying and adapt
@vishalg8181
March 20, 2025 at 4:58 am
Would it possible to call something ethical when its very beginning is largely based on “unethical practices” or “deceptive measures”?
@aminbiuki2727
March 20, 2025 at 5:40 am
It is all matter of money! AI is changing the works, the ideas and the path in so many branches. If it is bringing down the cost of tasks and products, it is good as it can effect on inflation!
I agree there should be a subscriptoin – but nothing more. Dont make it complicated!
@marka2188
March 20, 2025 at 7:05 am
This is a very important question to discuss. His proposed solutions are either incomplete or too late or he is trying to propose creating smaller businesses (like his own music idea where he pays a small licensing fee then offer a paid service) – great idea if you don’t like big businesses.
I see this as a temporary problem. Now we all use AI tools and it will increases exponentially- both paid and free versions. Though many use these tools to ask fun questions many will use these tools to improve their own creativity. The question is don’t these big companies use this vast and evolving data to train their AI models and by doing so their need to pay anyone goes away?
@Pr1mzYT-qk5gx
March 20, 2025 at 7:05 am
I am researching and making an essay for a school project about AI and creativity with its benefits and negatives. I came to this video and its been a great help and a good source It’s also quite recent, as I see it was just posted 23 hours ago. Not only that, there’s a lot of numerical data, which is quite good!. Thanks TED and Ed-Newton Rex!
@jtmuzix
March 20, 2025 at 10:58 am
good artists are inspired by other good artists. Get over yourselves!
@loadinganimation69
March 20, 2025 at 11:51 am
Nah I disagree. If it IS so good, then the society should restructure around it so that everyone has a decent living regardless. This wouldn’t even be a debate had our societies not been built on the principle of climbing over others instead of building a common harmonious whole
@Sunnytalor
March 20, 2025 at 11:59 am
Do artistes pay for other artist for the song they heard that inspired them? whats the diffrence?
@alexatedw
March 20, 2025 at 1:03 pm
Nothing. We should let the AI steal. If we don’t, China will and win the AI race
@yangshaonian
March 20, 2025 at 1:55 pm
Lack of AI laws
@tmY90265
March 20, 2025 at 2:01 pm
I hope this will help improve the direction. I work in 3 creative industries, illustration, films and video games and we have started seeing the impact of gen AI in the livelihood of professional artists and creators. And its not the PR campaign that these AI companies are touting, it’s NOT having a positive impact in improving creators work but in fact undermining it. Also, what has been under reported or not even covered is the future artists and creators. I have read many discussions of young ppl in fear of a future that they will be locked out of. Young artists questioning whether to go into art and some that have already abandoned it. Being a “successful” artist has always been hard, but the uneven playing field this is creating and is already being felt is just not sustainable and its real people lives and dreams that will pay the cost of it.
@knowbody5292
March 20, 2025 at 3:12 pm
Another example of the 1% believing they can take anything they want from the 99% and their legal system helping them to do it.
@ChristopherShipe
March 20, 2025 at 3:41 pm
Trial and error in this AI boom. Fixing this is one of the largest problems to solve it seems.
Super cool non-profit too.
@KristiGilleland
March 20, 2025 at 4:38 pm
I don’t know. This is sort of like saying that you should have to pay a licensing fee to analyze something because that’s all AI is really doing. If you think about human intelligence, we listen to songs, just wherever. We analyze it. And maybe can recognize the artist or even reproduce the artist style. AI is no different. I know that’s probably not the popular opinion, but I really don’t agree with this guy. If AI were just wrote spitting it out just like it went in then yeah I would think that somebody was old of royalty, but if ai’s just training on things and analyzing things and saying this is the style of this person or this is done in the style of that person, then I really don’t see what the problem is.
@JesseFagan
March 20, 2025 at 4:55 pm
Even if materials were licensed, it wouldn’t change the opinions of most artists. The idea that it was trained on stolen data is simply an easy thing to attack. And “licensed AI” will still impact the job market for artists. The talk ends with “People signed a thing. I hope, I hope, I hope” but with no practical approach to enforcement or social change. Incredibly naive.