5 ms·

Section 306 and 313.2 which states that content purely created by machines will not be eligible for protection. Content that is randomly generated will not be e

Section 306 and 313.2 which states that content purely created by machines will not be eligible for protection. Content that is randomly generated will not be eligible either. https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/ https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/ Also see: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing > As a software developer: yes I am! No. Another reason why the copyright protection not applying to purely automatic processes make sense. A machine could theoretically generate every potential expression understandable by the compiler or interpreter. You can't. You aren't capable of the same mass production. You will die at some point and your work will be released for public but same won't happen to machines. > So if I'm under surveillance, that means I'm affected by copyright? No. It just makes it easier to prove original sources. The reason why I proposed my initial argument is simply for accountability and right to information. 1. Unlike stackoverflow which every participant agrees on a license when they signup, common crawl is different. I believe everyone has right to the weights derived from their data unless they explicitly sell them or give permission. 2. When gpt3 is used for interviews and other filtration: it is important for anyone to be able discern it.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
> No. Another reason why the copyright protection not applying to purely automatic processes make sense. A machine could theoretically generate every potential expression understandable by the compiler or interpreter. You can't. Sure I can, it'll just take a while. > You will die at some point and your work will be released for public but same won't happen to machines. I'm not arguing machine produced work should be copyright protected. This is about quite the opposite, about how copyright protection relates to the process of learning as exercised by machines vs. humans. > 1. Unlike stackoverflow which every participant agrees on a license when they signup, common crawl is different. I believe everyone has right to the weights derived from their data unless they explicitly sell them or give permission. The big disagreement here is that I think posting anything on the internet gives an implicit license for "brainlike consumption" - reading, understanding and learning. GPT isn't doing anything while training that I'm not doing while reading. It would be impossible for a human to read the text at all without engaging in these processes, and so it must likewise be permissible for GPT. Consider the futuristic scenario of a brain implant extending your memory for Alzheimer's patients. GPT is not so dissimilar from such an implant operating in standalone mode. I don't see how screwing a brain onto it should change the ethical algebra to make it more permissible.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > GPT isn't doing anything while training that I'm not doing while reading. That's another disagreement. I consider the scale and classification (machine?) to be an important distinction. I would like to think more about this. I probably won't change my initial stance on requiring ml models to be public if they are used commerically even if point 1 shouldn't apply. However, whether they get IP protection of any sort and who owns it depends on sorting out other points I have considered after this.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

> No. Another reason why the copyright protection not applying to purely automatic processes make sense. A machine could theoretically generate every potential expression understandable by the compiler or interpreter. You can't. Sure I can, it'll just take a while. > You will die at some point and your work will be released for public but same won't happen to machines. I'm not arguing machine produced work should be copyright protected. This is about quite the opposite, about how copyright protection relates to the process of learning as exercised by machines vs. humans. > 1. Unlike stackoverflow which every participant agrees on a license when they signup, common crawl is different. I believe everyone has right to the weights derived from their data unless they explicitly sell them or give permission. The big disagreement here is that I think posting anything on the internet gives an implicit license for "brainlike consumption" - reading, understanding and learning. GPT isn't doing anything while training that I'm not doing while reading. It would be impossible for a human to read the text at all without engaging in these processes, and so it must likewise be permissible for GPT. Consider the futuristic scenario of a brain implant extending your memory for Alzheimer's patients. GPT is not so dissimilar from such an implant operating in standalone mode. I don't see how screwing a brain onto it should change the ethical algebra to make it more permissible.

searchableguy 6y ago
> GPT isn't doing anything while training that I'm not doing while reading. That's another disagreement. I consider the scale and classification (machine?) to be an important distinction. I would like to think more about this. I probably won't change my initial stance on requiring ml models to be public if they are used commerically even if point 1 shouldn't apply. However, whether they get IP protection of any sort and who owns it depends on sorting out other points I have considered after this.