3 ms·

Google couldn't get this argument to fly for software APIs-are-not-copyrightable at SCOTUS. And that was for an argument where pretty much every computer person

Google couldn't get this argument to fly for software APIs-are-not-copyrightable at SCOTUS. And that was for an argument where pretty much every computer person except Oracle agreed that Google was right. Arguing that AI is mining ideas and not expressions is going to be a lot less successful when you've got a large pool of expert witnesses who are going to be able and willing to say that AI is only capable of mimicking the form of what it sees.

visarga 4y ago
AI is not just that. That's a myth. Yes, when you train on a human generated corpus you're going to get an interpolative AI. But when you train on a dataset generated by AI, you can surpass human level. AlphaZero started, as the name says, from zero. No examples of how we play the game. In just three days of self-play it surpassed the best human. How was that possible? We got a 2000 year head start, larger brains, and many players, not just one model. AlphaZero did it by creating its own training data. Here is an example of using code language models for this kind of dataset-creation by play. > Evolution through Large Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 By the way, GPT-3 and chatGPT are not simple interpolative language models. They have also been trained on many tasks, problems, and codes, which is the kind of data that will awaken the skills of the model to a whole new level. What I am saying is that we can auto-generate more problem data and increase their skills.
naasking 4y ago
If Sally wrote a program that generated a giant dataset of token frequencies and associations by analyzing Github source code, that doesn't violate copyright and she could sell that. If Bob wrote a program that took Sally's dataset and produced source code from prompts, that too would in principle not violate copyright and he could sell that. But you're suggesting that if one person did both at once, that would violate copyright?
rockemsockem 4y ago
Wait, what do you mean Google couldn't get that argument to fly? Google won the case. Are you referring to the fact that the SCOTUS didn't directly address the copyrightability of APIs and instead ruled in favor of Google on the basis that Google's use was fair use *even if* APIs are copyrightable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Yes. Google's argument that software APIs weren't copyrightable because of the idea-expression divide didn't find purchase. It won the case on other (fair use grounds). Indeed, if you read the opinion closely, there are a few places where it looks like there used to be a section in the opinion on software API copyrightability (given Breyer was the author, noncopyrightability is probably more apt) that was ripped out in later drafts, presumably because there wasn't the votes for it.

visarga 4y ago

AI is not just that. That's a myth. Yes, when you train on a human generated corpus you're going to get an interpolative AI. But when you train on a dataset generated by AI, you can surpass human level. AlphaZero started, as the name says, from zero. No examples of how we play the game. In just three days of self-play it surpassed the best human. How was that possible? We got a 2000 year head start, larger brains, and many players, not just one model. AlphaZero did it by creating its own training data. Here is an example of using code language models for this kind of dataset-creation by play. > Evolution through Large Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08896 By the way, GPT-3 and chatGPT are not simple interpolative language models. They have also been trained on many tasks, problems, and codes, which is the kind of data that will awaken the skills of the model to a whole new level. What I am saying is that we can auto-generate more problem data and increase their skills.

naasking 4y ago

If Sally wrote a program that generated a giant dataset of token frequencies and associations by analyzing Github source code, that doesn't violate copyright and she could sell that. If Bob wrote a program that took Sally's dataset and produced source code from prompts, that too would in principle not violate copyright and he could sell that. But you're suggesting that if one person did both at once, that would violate copyright?

rockemsockem 4y ago

Wait, what do you mean Google couldn't get that argument to fly? Google won the case. Are you referring to the fact that the SCOTUS didn't directly address the copyrightability of APIs and instead ruled in favor of Google on the basis that Google's use was fair use *even if* APIs are copyrightable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

jcranmer 4y ago
Yes. Google's argument that software APIs weren't copyrightable because of the idea-expression divide didn't find purchase. It won the case on other (fair use grounds). Indeed, if you read the opinion closely, there are a few places where it looks like there used to be a section in the opinion on software API copyrightability (given Breyer was the author, noncopyrightability is probably more apt) that was ripped out in later drafts, presumably because there wasn't the votes for it.