5 ms·
The right to restrict learning from the literary work is not a right that is granted under copyright. You can make your code something that cannot be _reproduc
by chii 4y ago
The right to restrict learning from the literary work is not a right that is granted under copyright.
You can make your code something that cannot be _reproduced_ without a license, but you cannot stop someone from learning ideas from your published code. This does not require a license (only distributing, or making derivative works needs licenses).
Whether that learning comes via ML, or a real flesh human brain, i think, makes no distinction. You will need to lobby for an update to copyright laws to add a new right to be granted.
- omnicognate 4y ago> Whether that learning comes via ML, or a real flesh human brain, i think, makes no distinction. You think. Others disagree. It has not yet been tested in court.
- quonn 4y agoExactly. The current laws were made based on typical human capabilities. Since the level of remembering content that some of these AIs now do is different (potentially more accurate and maybe faster) it would make sense to treat them accordingly. Additionally there is something to be said for overfitting: On one end of a spectrum I could have a well trained AI and on the other end I could have a lookup table of the training data and somewhere in the middle maybe a model that overfits a lot and produces something close to the original content. How about that? I think there are a lot of interesting questions here.
- cf141q5325 4y agoI believe trying to achieve this result misses the point in the long term. What are you going to do once a model reproduces your code/art without ever seeing it?
- chii 4y ago> It has not yet been tested in court. courts don't create new rights, they interpret existing laws. I can't really see how the existing copyright laws can be interpreted such that a distinction could be made between a machine learning and a human learning.
- cudgy 4y agoMachines do not have rights. That is one distinction.
- chii 4y agoIt's not a right of the machine we're talking about, but the rights of the copyright holder that is purporting to claim that ML models trained with their works is a derivative of their works, and thus can claim copyright over the ML model. I do not believe such rights exist under current copyright laws. Others argue that it does (or ought to exist).
- omnicognate 4y agoThe fact that you can't see it doesn't mean others can't. The difference is blindingly obvious to me. Courts do indeed interpret existing laws. The question of whether current laws regarding human learning apply equally to machine learning is one of interpretation, precisely the sort of thing that is ultimately resolved by court decisions, including appeals potentially up to the supreme court, establishing precedents. Until that process takes place, your interpretation is just your interpretation, not the interpretation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- IYasha 4y agoWell, I've just thought of something: what if I replace the term "learning" with "parsing", or, better, "processing"? That, of course, rises some ambiguities too, but keeps away from rabbit hole of "learning". If we define "learning" as automatic processing in an intent to accumulate data and logics vital to reproduction of similar work... (not compilation, though) But I'm lost in thoughts ) At least I could prevent machine parsing... probably.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xur17 4y agoIsn't that what humans do when they are studying something?
- IYasha 4y agoNo, hence the "automatic". You can't make machine to learn for you, or do pushups to train your body instead of you )
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fathyb 4y agoI believe this would prevent users from building the program or getting autocomplete in an editor?
- throwaway290 4y agoLearning by a human is not ML. The same word used for completely distinct ideas shouldn't mislead you into thinking those ideas are the same.
- chii 4y agoWhere is learning a right specified by the copyright laws? See https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/copyright-owners-rights/copyright-exclusive-rights/ https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explai... * 1. Right to control the reproduction of the work * 2. Right to control the making of derivative works * 3. Right to control the distribution of the work * 4. Right to control the public performance of the work * 5. Right to control the public display of the work * 6. Right to perform a sound recording publicly by means of digital audio transmission The closest is the right to make derivative works - is the ML model a derivative work of the training data? I guess this would need to be tested out in court.
- throwaway290 4y agoThe fact that there is no legal concept that limits using a work as machine training data has no relation to the fact that there is a word "learning" in ML though. I would suggest stopping referring to "learning" in this context.
- chii 4y agoYes, i think this is the fundamental question (or disagreement). Is the right to using the work as training data something that needs to be granted by the copyright holder, or is implicit when granting the right to view the work? My argument is that it is implicit - a human viewing the training data is allowed to learn from it. There's no reason to differentiate a human brain from a machine "brain" in this context.
- throwaway290 4y agoYou insist on using the word "learning" to refer to completely different concepts as if you don't read anything I write. On the off chance you do: it's not about some a "need" to differentiate or not. They are just completely different, unrelated in all ways concepts. Are you familiar with cases where a single word is used for unrelated things as a metaphor? A machine does not learn in human sense because it lacks and will always lack consciousness. If you want human rights to apply to machines you first have to prove they have consciousness. If you do that (let's pretend), the subject of this thread stops being an issue, because once a machine has human rights no one is able to use it to make unlimited copyright-violating works without paying equivalent human wage, making the entire point of ML acting as copyright laundering tool moot.
- xg15 4y ago> The right to restrict learning from the literary work is not a right that is granted under copyright. And yet, it's apparently perfectly legal to put DRM on books and control exactly when and how they are read [1] - by actual humans. > Whether that learning comes via ML, or a real flesh human brain, i think, makes no distinction. Strongly disagree here. Sure, ML shops would like that to be the case, but for now it's just muddying the waters by using anthropomorphizing language. What you call "learning" is so far just scraping the data to adjust model weights using an algorithm in a machine. Contrast that with a human drawing knowledge or inspiration from a work they read before. Those two are different things, unless you want to assume that ML models have a conscious mind and constitute a person - at which point, you'll have much bigger ethical problems than copyright violations. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34391332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34391332
- chii 4y ago> control exactly when and how they are read this is, unfortunately, a right to distribution and display. It is most definitely not learning. > Contrast that with a human drawing knowledge or inspiration from a work they read before. But neural networks is mimicking a human's brain function in simplified form. The requirement for consciousness is not needed. If the argument is that humans' brains do something so special that a machine cannot be made to reproduce it, then you have an argument; but i do not believe it to be true. Using a machine created algorithm to extract ideas, knowledge, structure and form from a literary work is exactly what i would call learning. Imagine, as an example, i learnt how to make/cook new recipes by looking at existing recipes. Is the knowledge gained from doing so a derivative work of the existing recipes? What if i wrote a machine and parsed these recipes, extracted all of the forms/patterns, and used it to reproduce new recipes? How is the outcome any different from above?
- cudgy 4y agoOne huge difference is scale and effort, which have much larger implications than whether something is “learning”. When a human learns a work of art, it is a single human that took weeks, months, or even years to accomplish a similar work. Only that single human is incremental to the market for that product. Furthermore, that human can improve upon or create an entirely new field or style of work. With machines, this process is replicated instantly and becomes pervasive, resulting in elimination of many humans performing the work. This can destroy the potential creativity that was possible from the replaced humans within that specific trade. The machine learning of today is stupid and simple with no creativity, only copies or amalgamations of existing works. The end result is the death of progress within that trade and potentially stagnation of the human race as it perfects the use of the tools (e.g. prompt engineers, glorified button pressers) and ceases to move things forward.
- MattPalmer1086 4y agoBut isn't the act of viewing a digital file also an act of copying? Could you not have a license that grants this as long as the copy is not provided to a machine learning algorithm?