3 ms·
> 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 cou
by 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.