7 ms·

Absolutely this -- and in many (maybe most cases), there was no consent for the use of the work in training the model, and quite possibly no notice or compensat

Absolutely this -- and in many (maybe most cases), there was no consent for the use of the work in training the model, and quite possibly no notice or compensation at all. That's a huge ethical issue whether or not it's explicitly addressed in copyright/ip law.

api 4y ago
I really think there's likely to be gigantic class action lawsuits in the near future, and I support them. People did not consent for their data and work to be used in this way. In many cases people have already demonstrated using custom tailored prompts that these models have been trained on copyrighted works that are not public domain.
- archontes 4y ago
  Consent isn't required if they're making their work available for public viewing.
  - granshaw 4y ago
    For VIEWING. This is like blatantly taking your gpl licensed code and using it for commercial purposes
    - archontes 4y ago
      A thing that can be viewed can be learned from. I can't copy your GPL code. I might be able to write my own code that does the same thing. I'm going to defend this statement in advance. A lot of software developers white knight more than they strictly have to; they claim that learning from GPL code unavoidably results in infringing reproduction of that code. Courts, however, apply a test [1], in an attempt to determine the degree to which the idea is separable from the expression of that idea. Copyright protects particular expression, not idea, and in the case that the idea cannot be separated from the expression, the expression cannot be copyrighted. So either I'm able to produce a non-infringing expression of the idea, or the expression cannot be copyrighted, and the GPL license is redundant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...
- OctopusLupid 4y ago
  It's already explicitly legal to train AI using copyrighted data in many countries. You can ignore opt-outs too, especially if you're training AI for non-commercial purposes. Search up TDM exceptions.
archontes 4y ago
It is not a huge ethical issue. The artists have always been at risk of someone learning their style if they make their work available for public viewing. We've just made "learning style" easier, so a thing that was always a risk is now happening.
- wwweston 4y ago
  Let's shift your risk of immediate assault and death up by a few orders of magnitude. I'm sure that you'll see that as "just" something that was always a risk, pretty much status quo, right right? Oh, life & death is different? Don't be so sure; there's good reasons to believe that livelihood (not to mention social credit) and life are closely related -- and also, the fundamental point doesn't depend on the specific example: you can't point to an orders-of-magnitude change and then claim we're dealing with a situation that's qualitatively like it's "always" been. "Easier" doesn't begin to honestly represent what's happened here: we've crossed a threshold where we have technology for production by automated imitation at scale. And where that tech works primarily because of imitation, the work of those imitated has been a crucial part of that. Where that work has a reasonable claim of ownership, those who own it deserve to be recognized & compensated.
  - archontes 4y ago
    The 'reasonable claim of ownership' extends to restricting transmission, not use after transmission. Artists are poets, and they're railing against Trurl's electronic bard. [https://electricliterature.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Trurls-Electronic-Bard.pdf https://electricliterature.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Tr...]
    - wwweston 4y ago
      > The 'reasonable claim of ownership' extends to restricting transmission, not use after transmission. It's not even clear you're correct by the apparent (if limited) support of your own argument. "Transmission" of some sort is certainly occurring when the work is given as input. It's probably even tenable to argue that a copy is created in the representation of the model. You probably mean to argue something to the effect that dissemination by the model is the key threshold by which we'd recognize something like the current copyright law might fail to apply, the transformative nature of output being a key distinction. But some people have already shown that some outputs are much less transformative than others -- and even that's not the overall point, which is that this is a qualitative change much like those that gave birth to industrial-revolution copyright itself, and calls for a similar kind of renegotiation to protect the underlying ethics. People should have a say in how the fruits of their labor are bargained for and used. Including into how machines and models that drive them are used. That's part of intentionally creating a society that's built for humans, including artists and poets.
myrryr 4y ago
That is a hard fight to have, since it is the same for people. An artist will have watched some Disney movie, and that could influence their art in some small way. Does Disney have a right to take a small amount from every bit of art which they produce from then on? Obviously not. The real answer is AI are not people, and it is ok to have different rules for them, and that is where the fight would need to be.

api 4y ago

I really think there's likely to be gigantic class action lawsuits in the near future, and I support them. People did not consent for their data and work to be used in this way. In many cases people have already demonstrated using custom tailored prompts that these models have been trained on copyrighted works that are not public domain.

archontes 4y ago
Consent isn't required if they're making their work available for public viewing.
- granshaw 4y ago
  For VIEWING. This is like blatantly taking your gpl licensed code and using it for commercial purposes
  - archontes 4y ago
    A thing that can be viewed can be learned from. I can't copy your GPL code. I might be able to write my own code that does the same thing. I'm going to defend this statement in advance. A lot of software developers white knight more than they strictly have to; they claim that learning from GPL code unavoidably results in infringing reproduction of that code. Courts, however, apply a test [1], in an attempt to determine the degree to which the idea is separable from the expression of that idea. Copyright protects particular expression, not idea, and in the case that the idea cannot be separated from the expression, the expression cannot be copyrighted. So either I'm able to produce a non-infringing expression of the idea, or the expression cannot be copyrighted, and the GPL license is redundant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...
OctopusLupid 4y ago
It's already explicitly legal to train AI using copyrighted data in many countries. You can ignore opt-outs too, especially if you're training AI for non-commercial purposes. Search up TDM exceptions.

archontes 4y ago

It is not a huge ethical issue. The artists have always been at risk of someone learning their style if they make their work available for public viewing. We've just made "learning style" easier, so a thing that was always a risk is now happening.

wwweston 4y ago
Let's shift your risk of immediate assault and death up by a few orders of magnitude. I'm sure that you'll see that as "just" something that was always a risk, pretty much status quo, right right? Oh, life & death is different? Don't be so sure; there's good reasons to believe that livelihood (not to mention social credit) and life are closely related -- and also, the fundamental point doesn't depend on the specific example: you can't point to an orders-of-magnitude change and then claim we're dealing with a situation that's qualitatively like it's "always" been. "Easier" doesn't begin to honestly represent what's happened here: we've crossed a threshold where we have technology for production by automated imitation at scale. And where that tech works primarily because of imitation, the work of those imitated has been a crucial part of that. Where that work has a reasonable claim of ownership, those who own it deserve to be recognized & compensated.
- archontes 4y ago
  The 'reasonable claim of ownership' extends to restricting transmission, not use after transmission. Artists are poets, and they're railing against Trurl's electronic bard. [https://electricliterature.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Trurls-Electronic-Bard.pdf https://electricliterature.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Tr...]
  - wwweston 4y ago
    > The 'reasonable claim of ownership' extends to restricting transmission, not use after transmission. It's not even clear you're correct by the apparent (if limited) support of your own argument. "Transmission" of some sort is certainly occurring when the work is given as input. It's probably even tenable to argue that a copy is created in the representation of the model. You probably mean to argue something to the effect that dissemination by the model is the key threshold by which we'd recognize something like the current copyright law might fail to apply, the transformative nature of output being a key distinction. But some people have already shown that some outputs are much less transformative than others -- and even that's not the overall point, which is that this is a qualitative change much like those that gave birth to industrial-revolution copyright itself, and calls for a similar kind of renegotiation to protect the underlying ethics. People should have a say in how the fruits of their labor are bargained for and used. Including into how machines and models that drive them are used. That's part of intentionally creating a society that's built for humans, including artists and poets.

myrryr 4y ago

That is a hard fight to have, since it is the same for people. An artist will have watched some Disney movie, and that could influence their art in some small way. Does Disney have a right to take a small amount from every bit of art which they produce from then on? Obviously not. The real answer is AI are not people, and it is ok to have different rules for them, and that is where the fight would need to be.