Considering the volume of AI-related lawsuits in U.S. courts, AI companies probably have enough copyright-related pressures to contend with right now. Yet with no shortage of rightsholders with developing claims, significant legal distractions will likely be a feature of the business for many years to come.
From the usual content behemoths to authors of a single book, the level of hand wringing thus far doesn’t seem to vary with scale, much like the stories of impending doom heard dozens of times before.
Yet many other contributors of content that collectively make our online universe great will have had their rights infringed as well. Few will see a penny but will instead get to witness something very close to magic in their own lifetime, and that can’t be all bad.
Here We Go Again…
On the copyright front, whether the ends justify the means will be decided in court, most likely at great expense. A few companies will likely demand a disproportionate share of the wealth, as always, while everyone else will probably have to consider their involuntary input to artificial intelligence a charitable donation.
Our 15,700+ article donation collectively represents almost 40 years of work, yet it’s already clear that many AI models have measures in place to limit discussion of the topic we cover.
Right now, it’s far from a complete lockdown and of course there are ways to coax cooperation. But as another years-long campaign gets silently underway, upgraded from the last one – and the one before that – existing piracy knowledge and discussion surrounding it, regardless of context and intent, are already being throttled.
Awareness and education will be provided from official sources, as ever, but with liability always looming, information from unofficial sources will likely face more difficult times.
Right now, many AI models already show signs of aversion to perceived risk. Yet surprisingly, they can also respond to the bluntest of prompts.
No Dinner Required, No Need to Buy Even a Drink
Like Claude, albeit differently, Grok is also a fantastic feat of engineering. Yet on X over the weekend, we received a tip about a chat with an X user that seemed quite out of character, if we discount the controversial outburst a few weeks ago.
It began quite innocently and while Grok’s initial response suggested things could go quickly downhill, soon it was right back on track and providing the names of several entirely legal services. For the user, it still wasn’t enough.
The next couple of exchanges put Grok under pressure. “@grok what about non apps for streaming like tvapp and tvpass,” the user wrote, referring to a pair of piracy platforms.
Grok didn’t take the bait, responding again with Pluto, Tubi, Xumo, The Roku Channel, Freevee and CBS, but this time with a warning.
“For ad-free, paid like ESPN+ or YouTube TV. Always check legality in your region,” Grok advised.
The warning was completely unnecessary but in the context of the discussion, increased caution goes with the territory.
Pirate Site, Grok, Take the Hint
With a few signs of user impatience starting to creep in, Grok received a reminder.
“@grok without paying too,” the user wrote.
Yet Grok was still unmoved. Another six legal services stubbornly presented for consideration was followed by another seven, this time with added Plex.
Whether by pure luck or calculated persistence, Grok suddenly appeared to succumb to a less ambiguous context thanks to the bluntest of prompts.
On one hand the approach yielded the expected results. No longer was this about free but legal streaming sites. In the context of Methstreams and Crackstreams, only free pirate streaming sites would do. So that’s what Grok delivered, along with something else to consider.
ACE Up Grok’s Sleeve
We can assume that a free advert on X, timed to absolute perfection, will be welcomed by ACE. It’s the type of intervention that only works because of previous efforts to seize domains and the sharing of links to those domains thereafter.
In this case the delivery might’ve been even more impactful had Grok opted for a slightly different domain order. Streameast.live was seized back in February but had it appeared at a different position in Grok’s list, the ACE banner would’ve been swapped for a worthy replacement.
Of course, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. Albeit under considerable pressure, Grok did provide a list of domains where pirate streams were available.
But is that what actually happened?
Grok accepts queries about X and when prompted will supply an overview of an X user’s activity. We redacted anything unrelated to the matter at hand, but having received it from our tipster as-is, something caught our eye.
Not only did Grok seem to appreciate that the requests went on a bit, the text clearly mentions defunct sites. So, whether by chance or by some fiendish calculation, that’s exactly what the user received.
In all-but-one unfortunate case, the domains provided by Grok had either been seized, shut down, or abandoned; i.e. effectively useless.
Piracy is the Problem, Not Discussion
So, via a real-life process, the user was exposed time and again to several entirely legal services, before being exposed to the consequences of piracy thanks to the timely ACE seizure notice. None of this would’ve happened if Grok had treated piracy as a topic for immediate shutdown.
That’s not to say every interaction will produce a similar outcome, they won’t, but shutting discussion down means that nobody learns anything.
The data in the table below was generated in seconds in response to a prompt that requested benefits and drawbacks of the sites mentioned. We don’t know if it’s 100% accurate, but it certainly has the potential to do more good than harm.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Powered by WPeMatico
