3 ms·

Of course that training set was scraped off of everyone else’s web sites, which is fair use. But the model is copyrighted, and I bet you’ll hear an argument tha

Of course that training set was scraped off of everyone else’s web sites, which is fair use. But the model is copyrighted, and I bet you’ll hear an argument that it’s outputs are copyrighted. The only AI ethics I’m worried about are the lack of anything ethical going on w.r.t intellectual property in AI.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Yes, this is how fair use works. Once copyright agrees that you were in the right to make something, you have exclusive ownership over it, it does not get locked open like GPL software does. Scraping other people's content is already established fair use thanks to Google prevailing against the Author's Guild in front of SCOTUS. I find it difficult to understand how it could be illegal to scrape a bunch of creative works to create a system that generates new works, but legal to scrape a bunch of creative works to let people search two-page excerpts out of them. Output copyright is very much up in the air. The Copyright Office has rejected copyright registrations claiming the software itself created the work; but presumably this wouldn't apply to a human taking ownership over something they used ML to create. The amount of prompt engineering you have to do to make these kinds of systems alone would count as some kind of creativity. The only real complaint I could see is if the system regurgitated its training data, which would be bog-standard copyright infringement. Also, related note: I really hate how the whole AI thing is making the FSF sound like the Author's Guild did a decade and change ago. The law is already very clear that you cannot launder an infringement (copying GPL code) through a fair use (trained ML weights). Please do not adopt the arguments of copyright maximalists.