3 ms·

If you pirate a book, learn from it and then create something using the information you learned, would that creation constitute copyright infringement? If so ho

If you pirate a book, learn from it and then create something using the information you learned, would that creation constitute copyright infringement? If so how far does the tainting go? Once you put your eyes on something which you haven't purchased, all future works could potentially be inspired by that experience and should therefore be considered infringement, following your logic.

cactusplant7374 4y ago
The AI doesn’t understand what it consumes. That is why the models still can’t add two numbers.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  What's the difference between acting as if it actually understands and "true understanding". I'd argue there is none, or at least that it doesn't matter. For instance there is nothing you could do to prove to me that you aren't just a black box acting on input in a sophisticated manner (eg. chinese room argument[1]), yet I give you the benefit of the doubt. GPT's lack of understanding of math may be a localized lack of understanding where it does "understand" other topics. I don't require you to display an understanding of quantum physics in order to prove that you're able to understand anything at all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
  - cactusplant7374 4y ago
    Humans understand and there is just no comparison. Can an AI make a major novel discovery as humans have? How could they if they don’t understand language?
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I'm sure this topic is already the subject of much discussion, but from the sessions I've had with ChatGPT, it's quite obvious it doesn't really "understand" very much in the way humans do. At best it seems to understand what question you want an answer to, but it often fails miserably even in simple cases (try asking it how many letters certain words have, or to give examples of words ending in a particular letter etc.). But sure, eventually it may overcome those cases and make an excellent mimic of an intelligence with understanding. If it's genuinely able to produce output accurately emulating all the sorts of logical reasoning humans can do then it may well be impossible to distinguish it from "the real thing" (whatever that actually is...)
b112 4y ago
We are not dealing with AGI here. Current trained models are basically just using copy and paste, to create "new" works. There is zero creativity, zero art, zero original thought, zero newness. When actual AGI happens, then your arguments mean something. Such as in, at least 50 or 100 years down the road.
- olalonde 4y ago
  We're not dealing with AGI but modern models absolutely demonstrate creativity and newness. If it was simple copy paste, we wouldn't be having this whole conservation since it would be simple for copyright owners to sue and win in case of infringement.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  There is no copy pasting on diffusion models. All there is is searching for very probable regions in space [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34378500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34378500
- joxel 4y ago
  Your statement here is simply ignorance. Generative models do not only provide “copy paste”, they can interpolate and extrapolate from training data. When a human sees a bunch of ideas and mixes them up to produce something slightly different it doesn’t bother anyone. But when a human creates an AI and uses it to do something similar suddenly it’s a problem. I think the burden of proof is on the laypeople here that keep whining about how AI is just copy paste (which is simply not true and such a base simplification it wouldn’t even pass a ELI5 truthfulness test). I’m sure this will get downvotes plenty.
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    > When a human sees a bunch of ideas and mixes them up to produce something slightly different it doesn’t bother anyone. Try to make a car using the best ideas developed by each car maker. You will be surprised.
- Aerroon 4y ago
vages 4y ago
The reason why you put your eyes on something is probably that someone had the hope of selling it to you. Or that someone paid for it on your behalf. The difference is that machine learning algorithms never (or rarely) leave a single penny in their training set creators’ pockets, turning “no income” into the default outcome. Copyright law is not about logically perfect system, but creating a general environment in which artistic, academic and other creations can appear and benefit the general population.
- myshpa 4y ago
  > Copyright law is not about logically perfect system, but creating a general environment in which artistic, academic and other creations can appear and benefit the general population. Yes ... and because it's not a logically perfect system, its lifetime has to be limited. One day we should abolish copyright and find a better, more functional way to drive progress.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Copyright at its heart is fine. The original objectives, allowing people to hold a short-term monopoly on their ideas, so they can fund further ideas, and the manner in which they’re achieved is perfectly fine. Where goes wrong, is when individuals and cooperation believe that such monopolies should be indefinite, and pushed the monopolies beyond the lifetime of the author. A dead author can’t produce new works, so it’s now clear how allowing such long monopolies increases the amount of creative work produced. The original primary objective of copyright was to create an environment to could produce an endless supply of public work, freely available to all. It’s only abuses of copyright over the past 50 years that have destroyed objective, and ironically it’s copyright holders like Disney that really starting to suffer the consequences. Winding back copyright durations to better balance the public and private interests would go a long way to resolving many of our issues with copyright today. > Yes ... and because it's not a logically perfect system, its lifetime has to be limited. It’s also worth pointing out that no system of law is “perfectly logical”. It’s almost certainly impossible to produce a perfectly logic system because humans are inherently illogical, and binding them into a perfectly logical system of law would almost certainly produce more injustices.
avianlyric 4y ago
> would that creation constitute copyright infringement? No, obviously not, as that would clearly be unworkable and ridiculous. Mainly because we have a very unclear understanding of human creativity, and there’s no way to analyse an individuals mind to understand how they created an idea. Additionally copyrights reach generally stops at the point of “transformation”, once you take any idea an transform it “enough” it’s considered a new idea. The reason none of the above applies to AI is simply because we’ve declared that only humans can transform and produce new ideas. AI aren’t human, thus they’re not afforded the same rights. Arguing about if there’s an inherent difference between AI creations and human creations is pointless, the law doesn’t care, it has already declared that there’s a difference between AI and human. If you disagree with declaration, then you need to lobby to change the law. But until the change occurs, your believes are meaningless in the eyes of the law.
- joxel 4y ago
  You see how you’re introducing a viewpoint and assuming it’s true — you’re just saying “humans can create things” and “ai can’t create things”. You don’t even address the possibility that the AI itself is a tool of the human who created it to create things.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    I think in order to justify "the AI is a tool that a human is using, just like a paintbrush" you would have to have to define what meaningful creative process that the human has followed while using the tool. In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. Consider when you commission an artist to make a painting. You give them a "prompt" by explaining what you want. Maybe you even give a "training dataset", a few examples similar to the look and feel of the result you want. Then they go off and make something. They show you in process stuff and you make suggestions so the next version they show you is closer to what you want. This repeats until you are both happy. Then you own the drawing. Because you paid them for it. In this case however it's absolutely clear that you did not create the work. You had input into the creation, but the artist was not a tool you are using to realize your own creative vision. They are the creator, you're a customer for them.
numpad0 4y ago
If you pirate a book, lossy compress it into a 14-byte content description vector, decompress it into a book that fundamentally contain at most 14-byte worth of information, then subsequently sold it, that will still be piracy partially depending on how good that 14-byte representation is.

cactusplant7374 4y ago

The AI doesn’t understand what it consumes. That is why the models still can’t add two numbers.

_Algernon_ 4y ago
What's the difference between acting as if it actually understands and "true understanding". I'd argue there is none, or at least that it doesn't matter. For instance there is nothing you could do to prove to me that you aren't just a black box acting on input in a sophisticated manner (eg. chinese room argument[1]), yet I give you the benefit of the doubt. GPT's lack of understanding of math may be a localized lack of understanding where it does "understand" other topics. I don't require you to display an understanding of quantum physics in order to prove that you're able to understand anything at all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  Humans understand and there is just no comparison. Can an AI make a major novel discovery as humans have? How could they if they don’t understand language?
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I'm sure this topic is already the subject of much discussion, but from the sessions I've had with ChatGPT, it's quite obvious it doesn't really "understand" very much in the way humans do. At best it seems to understand what question you want an answer to, but it often fails miserably even in simple cases (try asking it how many letters certain words have, or to give examples of words ending in a particular letter etc.). But sure, eventually it may overcome those cases and make an excellent mimic of an intelligence with understanding. If it's genuinely able to produce output accurately emulating all the sorts of logical reasoning humans can do then it may well be impossible to distinguish it from "the real thing" (whatever that actually is...)

b112 4y ago

We are not dealing with AGI here. Current trained models are basically just using copy and paste, to create "new" works. There is zero creativity, zero art, zero original thought, zero newness. When actual AGI happens, then your arguments mean something. Such as in, at least 50 or 100 years down the road.

olalonde 4y ago
We're not dealing with AGI but modern models absolutely demonstrate creativity and newness. If it was simple copy paste, we wouldn't be having this whole conservation since it would be simple for copyright owners to sue and win in case of infringement.
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
There is no copy pasting on diffusion models. All there is is searching for very probable regions in space [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34378500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34378500
joxel 4y ago
Your statement here is simply ignorance. Generative models do not only provide “copy paste”, they can interpolate and extrapolate from training data. When a human sees a bunch of ideas and mixes them up to produce something slightly different it doesn’t bother anyone. But when a human creates an AI and uses it to do something similar suddenly it’s a problem. I think the burden of proof is on the laypeople here that keep whining about how AI is just copy paste (which is simply not true and such a base simplification it wouldn’t even pass a ELI5 truthfulness test). I’m sure this will get downvotes plenty.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  > When a human sees a bunch of ideas and mixes them up to produce something slightly different it doesn’t bother anyone. Try to make a car using the best ideas developed by each car maker. You will be surprised.
Aerroon 4y ago

vages 4y ago

The reason why you put your eyes on something is probably that someone had the hope of selling it to you. Or that someone paid for it on your behalf. The difference is that machine learning algorithms never (or rarely) leave a single penny in their training set creators’ pockets, turning “no income” into the default outcome. Copyright law is not about logically perfect system, but creating a general environment in which artistic, academic and other creations can appear and benefit the general population.

myshpa 4y ago
> Copyright law is not about logically perfect system, but creating a general environment in which artistic, academic and other creations can appear and benefit the general population. Yes ... and because it's not a logically perfect system, its lifetime has to be limited. One day we should abolish copyright and find a better, more functional way to drive progress.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  Copyright at its heart is fine. The original objectives, allowing people to hold a short-term monopoly on their ideas, so they can fund further ideas, and the manner in which they’re achieved is perfectly fine. Where goes wrong, is when individuals and cooperation believe that such monopolies should be indefinite, and pushed the monopolies beyond the lifetime of the author. A dead author can’t produce new works, so it’s now clear how allowing such long monopolies increases the amount of creative work produced. The original primary objective of copyright was to create an environment to could produce an endless supply of public work, freely available to all. It’s only abuses of copyright over the past 50 years that have destroyed objective, and ironically it’s copyright holders like Disney that really starting to suffer the consequences. Winding back copyright durations to better balance the public and private interests would go a long way to resolving many of our issues with copyright today. > Yes ... and because it's not a logically perfect system, its lifetime has to be limited. It’s also worth pointing out that no system of law is “perfectly logical”. It’s almost certainly impossible to produce a perfectly logic system because humans are inherently illogical, and binding them into a perfectly logical system of law would almost certainly produce more injustices.

avianlyric 4y ago

> would that creation constitute copyright infringement? No, obviously not, as that would clearly be unworkable and ridiculous. Mainly because we have a very unclear understanding of human creativity, and there’s no way to analyse an individuals mind to understand how they created an idea. Additionally copyrights reach generally stops at the point of “transformation”, once you take any idea an transform it “enough” it’s considered a new idea. The reason none of the above applies to AI is simply because we’ve declared that only humans can transform and produce new ideas. AI aren’t human, thus they’re not afforded the same rights. Arguing about if there’s an inherent difference between AI creations and human creations is pointless, the law doesn’t care, it has already declared that there’s a difference between AI and human. If you disagree with declaration, then you need to lobby to change the law. But until the change occurs, your believes are meaningless in the eyes of the law.

joxel 4y ago
You see how you’re introducing a viewpoint and assuming it’s true — you’re just saying “humans can create things” and “ai can’t create things”. You don’t even address the possibility that the AI itself is a tool of the human who created it to create things.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  I think in order to justify "the AI is a tool that a human is using, just like a paintbrush" you would have to have to define what meaningful creative process that the human has followed while using the tool. In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. Consider when you commission an artist to make a painting. You give them a "prompt" by explaining what you want. Maybe you even give a "training dataset", a few examples similar to the look and feel of the result you want. Then they go off and make something. They show you in process stuff and you make suggestions so the next version they show you is closer to what you want. This repeats until you are both happy. Then you own the drawing. Because you paid them for it. In this case however it's absolutely clear that you did not create the work. You had input into the creation, but the artist was not a tool you are using to realize your own creative vision. They are the creator, you're a customer for them.

numpad0 4y ago

If you pirate a book, lossy compress it into a 14-byte content description vector, decompress it into a book that fundamentally contain at most 14-byte worth of information, then subsequently sold it, that will still be piracy partially depending on how good that 14-byte representation is.