5 ms·

> scale commonly matters in law I am not a lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. Scale matters, but so does the legality of the thing that scales. Rea

> scale commonly matters in law I am not a lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. Scale matters, but so does the legality of the thing that scales. Reading two dozen books by other authors, or studying hundreds of artworks, or visiting the museum of awesome statues every week, in order to get inspired for ones own novel/painting/scuplture, isn't illegal. So a lawsuit will have a really hard time argueing that it somehow is a problem if its two dozen billion books/paintings/sculptures. Because, such a lawsuit would suddely need to explain why the smaller scale is also problematic, only less so. And given that this is basically how art worked ever since the first human had the idea to paint pictures on a cave wall, that's a hard sell.

foota 4y ago
You make it sound like we should assume that getting inspiration from a few hundred or thousand art works that are very famous and highly public is the same as training over nearly every available public piece of art. I see no reason why that should be our null hypothesis. Humans either learn art by being natural art geniuses, or by receiving instruction and learning through an iterative process (where, again, they might create thousands of art works, but nowhere near the scale here), which is very different.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  > which is very different. Why is it different? The only difference that matters, is scale. And again, if I want to argue that something done 10000000000 times is legally problematic, I have to be prepared to explain why doing it 10 times is problematic as well, only less so.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    Nothing new. People differentiate between genocide and murder, for example, or poisoning water supply vs an individual poisoning. Criminal law in quite a few places definitely has scale considerations.
    - croon 4y ago
      You just gave two examples of where both ends of the scale are illegal, which only strengthens the argument of GP. IANAL, and I'm not stating anything about the reality of the judicial system, but only following the logic of the argument.
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        My examples only were meant illustrate that scale is a well known "thing" in legal systems and I happened to pick things with two illegal endpoints (IANAL). You could look at other things like the need for permits for certain things as a function of size and use, if you want simple examples for scale mattering and legal endpoint(s).
        usrbinbash 4y ago
        I am no lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. I am completely aware that scale is a "thing" in legal systems. But as I said before: For scale to be important, the unscaled act in itself has to be problematic already.
        RandomLensman 4y ago
        IANAL, but not sure I necessarily agree I with that. Why then worry about monopolies or cartels? Price setting is just "at scale" there, for example. Granted, things around power concentration have deep philosophical and social roots.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - foota 4y ago
    Would you give me a second of your time? What about 1 billion seconds of your time? Could I have a dollar? What about a billion dollars? The burden isn't on me to explain why something being scaled up by a billion is not the same.
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      The question isn't if a scaled up thing is the same, the question is if a legal thing scaled up suddenly becomes illegal for no other reason than being scaled up.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  1. An AI has a training set of one image and produces an exact replica. 2. An AI has a training set of every image in the world and produces an entirely unique work. Which do you have more of a problem with?
  - junofan 4y ago
    #2 is pretty interesting. After all, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative works. If we have machines that can generate creative works on demand with little effort, what purpose does copyright law serve?
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      I am not a lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. Copyright law serves the purpose of peoples works being protected from unauthorized parties making copies of their works, and profiting off them. It doesn't protect from technology making the production of new works cheaper, faster, more efficient. An artist using photoshop can be, and is allowed to be, many times faster than one using oil and canvas.
  - foota 4y ago
    That's a false dichotomy.
    - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
      I don't mean to suggest those are the only options, or that either one is even practical. The point is to determine where the objection lies: with the method or the outcome.
      - foota 4y ago
        Hm, okay. In that case, I would say the first is a problem, and the second is also, but differently. I think the objectionable thing about the second is that the AI knows everyone's styles, and so can use them in creating something new. Even if the AI is restricted to not be able to paint an image in a certain artist style (as the new version of stable diffusion is, for instance) and the art is unique, I think part of the problem is that the AI is still (presumably) leaning on the collective styles of everyone it has trained over. If we can train an AI over a small dataset or maybe even a large dataset of old art, or some mix in between, and then maybe fine tune it wtih a snall sampling of modern art, then I believe it would be unobjectionable, as this is largely how humans do it.
cycomanic 4y ago
However, AI learning is not the same as a person learning. The same way memorizing a book is not the same way as putting it into computer memory. Nobody would sue you for copyright infringement if you memorized a book, song or movie in your head. No the issue is a completely different matter if you made a copy on a harddrive.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning. ML can do either facsimile or imitation far better than a human mind can. You seem to be conflating both things and suggesting that ML only does facsimile, which is where the potential legal problems are.
  - b112 4y ago
    It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning No, it is not. Memorization =! understanding. I can teach a parrot to spew the times table, good luck getting it to understand how to apply it. And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      You don't need to understand something to go beyond memorization and copies.
    - htfu 4y ago
      You don't need to "understand" art to create it though. Good art, sure, maybe, but not really. Plenty of brilliant musicians who know fuck all about music theory, but they can crank out tunes. Diffusion would appear to me to work in much the same way. It doesn't understand what's good ("works", creates acceptable output) or why, but it knows it when it sees it, and has the tools to refine it.
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      > And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos. I am pretty sure that GPT-3 is a lot more capable than a parrot in transpiling a function written in Python to Golang, or writing a summary to a tech-magazine article. Same as StableDiffusion is ALOT more capable than me in drawing, painting and generally making up pretty pictures.
b112 4y ago
in order to get inspired But that never, ever, ever happens with current AI. it is not AGI. it is inspired by nothing, has no creativity, nada, ziltch.

foota 4y ago

You make it sound like we should assume that getting inspiration from a few hundred or thousand art works that are very famous and highly public is the same as training over nearly every available public piece of art. I see no reason why that should be our null hypothesis. Humans either learn art by being natural art geniuses, or by receiving instruction and learning through an iterative process (where, again, they might create thousands of art works, but nowhere near the scale here), which is very different.

usrbinbash 4y ago
> which is very different. Why is it different? The only difference that matters, is scale. And again, if I want to argue that something done 10000000000 times is legally problematic, I have to be prepared to explain why doing it 10 times is problematic as well, only less so.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Nothing new. People differentiate between genocide and murder, for example, or poisoning water supply vs an individual poisoning. Criminal law in quite a few places definitely has scale considerations.
  - croon 4y ago
    You just gave two examples of where both ends of the scale are illegal, which only strengthens the argument of GP. IANAL, and I'm not stating anything about the reality of the judicial system, but only following the logic of the argument.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      My examples only were meant illustrate that scale is a well known "thing" in legal systems and I happened to pick things with two illegal endpoints (IANAL). You could look at other things like the need for permits for certain things as a function of size and use, if you want simple examples for scale mattering and legal endpoint(s).
      - usrbinbash 4y ago
        I am no lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. I am completely aware that scale is a "thing" in legal systems. But as I said before: For scale to be important, the unscaled act in itself has to be problematic already.
        RandomLensman 4y ago
        IANAL, but not sure I necessarily agree I with that. Why then worry about monopolies or cartels? Price setting is just "at scale" there, for example. Granted, things around power concentration have deep philosophical and social roots.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- foota 4y ago
  Would you give me a second of your time? What about 1 billion seconds of your time? Could I have a dollar? What about a billion dollars? The burden isn't on me to explain why something being scaled up by a billion is not the same.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    The question isn't if a scaled up thing is the same, the question is if a legal thing scaled up suddenly becomes illegal for no other reason than being scaled up.
oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
1. An AI has a training set of one image and produces an exact replica. 2. An AI has a training set of every image in the world and produces an entirely unique work. Which do you have more of a problem with?
- junofan 4y ago
  #2 is pretty interesting. After all, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative works. If we have machines that can generate creative works on demand with little effort, what purpose does copyright law serve?
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    I am not a lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. Copyright law serves the purpose of peoples works being protected from unauthorized parties making copies of their works, and profiting off them. It doesn't protect from technology making the production of new works cheaper, faster, more efficient. An artist using photoshop can be, and is allowed to be, many times faster than one using oil and canvas.
- foota 4y ago
  That's a false dichotomy.
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    I don't mean to suggest those are the only options, or that either one is even practical. The point is to determine where the objection lies: with the method or the outcome.
    - foota 4y ago
      Hm, okay. In that case, I would say the first is a problem, and the second is also, but differently. I think the objectionable thing about the second is that the AI knows everyone's styles, and so can use them in creating something new. Even if the AI is restricted to not be able to paint an image in a certain artist style (as the new version of stable diffusion is, for instance) and the art is unique, I think part of the problem is that the AI is still (presumably) leaning on the collective styles of everyone it has trained over. If we can train an AI over a small dataset or maybe even a large dataset of old art, or some mix in between, and then maybe fine tune it wtih a snall sampling of modern art, then I believe it would be unobjectionable, as this is largely how humans do it.

cycomanic 4y ago

However, AI learning is not the same as a person learning. The same way memorizing a book is not the same way as putting it into computer memory. Nobody would sue you for copyright infringement if you memorized a book, song or movie in your head. No the issue is a completely different matter if you made a copy on a harddrive.

i_like_apis 4y ago
It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning. ML can do either facsimile or imitation far better than a human mind can. You seem to be conflating both things and suggesting that ML only does facsimile, which is where the potential legal problems are.
- b112 4y ago
  It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning No, it is not. Memorization =! understanding. I can teach a parrot to spew the times table, good luck getting it to understand how to apply it. And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    You don't need to understand something to go beyond memorization and copies.
  - htfu 4y ago
    You don't need to "understand" art to create it though. Good art, sure, maybe, but not really. Plenty of brilliant musicians who know fuck all about music theory, but they can crank out tunes. Diffusion would appear to me to work in much the same way. It doesn't understand what's good ("works", creates acceptable output) or why, but it knows it when it sees it, and has the tools to refine it.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    > And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos. I am pretty sure that GPT-3 is a lot more capable than a parrot in transpiling a function written in Python to Golang, or writing a summary to a tech-magazine article. Same as StableDiffusion is ALOT more capable than me in drawing, painting and generally making up pretty pictures.

b112 4y ago

in order to get inspired But that never, ever, ever happens with current AI. it is not AGI. it is inspired by nothing, has no creativity, nada, ziltch.