4 ms·

>You don’t need to. It’s implicitly assumed, by virtue of publishing in a public forum, that the author is providing permission for people read their comments a

by Levitz 4y ago

>You don’t need to. It’s implicitly assumed, by virtue of publishing in a public forum, that the author is providing permission for people read their comments and ideas, and remix them as they wish. That permission doesn’t include exact replication, but reading and understanding is assumed, otherwise why did the author publish it? Following this logic, isn't training AI on Github or Deviantart 100% fair game then? It's not like OpenAI is infiltrating computers and reading hidden away data.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
Only if you assume that ML models should be treated as though they have the same rights and privileges as humans. Personally I reject that. ML needs to be restricted heavily.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Why does it need to? It's just the agent of a human. Sounds like an option instead of a need.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    You're saying this as though we don't already have lots of regulations on tools to ensure that people use them appropriately. Forklifts are "agents of humans" but you still need a license to drive one. It's pretty obvious to me at least that AI bros are using these tools recklessly and inappropriately, without regard for licensing or copyright, and therefore I am proposing that the tools need to be regulated. Simple as that.
jcelerier 4y ago
> Following this logic, isn't training AI on Github or Deviantart 100% fair game then? Unlike forum comments, GitHub code generally has an explicit license attached which you'd have to respect - you know, for instance by giving attribution to every MIT-licensed source that was used. And even then, let's say someone releases a book with all your HN comments: you are definitely entitled to sue them for copyright. Here's some info from the BBS era, which is still relevant today: https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
- readams 4y ago
  But you can still see the code and learn generally how to write code. Maybe you see a style of unit testing in a library, and decide to incorporate the techniques into your own code. This is not a copyright violation. It can't be, or all creative expression would be dead.
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    Don't be so sure of that: in music it's now established that getting too close from the "style" of another musician is a copyright violation: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-s-going-on-another-marvin-gaye-62801/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-s-going-on-another-ma...
    - rickydroll 4y ago
      and this ruling will prove to be a disaster for music creation as there will be fewer copyright free spaces for music as time goes on. a similar ruling will also be a disaster for software as our tools of expression are very restricted. code is based on boolean algebra and predicate calculus, practice guides like design patterns and books teaching algorithms and data structures. there are lots of ways to write bad code and only a few for good, correct code. Recognizing this led me to replicating known working code, code I had created, for multiple employers. so who's copyright did I intentionally violate? I think we are attacking the wrong problem WRT ML and copyright. to me, ML shows the foundation on which copyright is built is a lie. we should use ML to break copyright for code.
      - salawat 4y ago
        To hell with only focusing on code. We should break copyright completely and take back the intellectual landscape.
    - dTal 4y ago
      Important distinction - these lawsuits are about copying the "style" of a single song, not a musician's entire output.

by Levitz 4y ago

bluefirebrand 4y ago

Only if you assume that ML models should be treated as though they have the same rights and privileges as humans. Personally I reject that. ML needs to be restricted heavily.

Terretta 4y ago
Why does it need to? It's just the agent of a human. Sounds like an option instead of a need.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  You're saying this as though we don't already have lots of regulations on tools to ensure that people use them appropriately. Forklifts are "agents of humans" but you still need a license to drive one. It's pretty obvious to me at least that AI bros are using these tools recklessly and inappropriately, without regard for licensing or copyright, and therefore I am proposing that the tools need to be regulated. Simple as that.

jcelerier 4y ago

> Following this logic, isn't training AI on Github or Deviantart 100% fair game then? Unlike forum comments, GitHub code generally has an explicit license attached which you'd have to respect - you know, for instance by giving attribution to every MIT-licensed source that was used. And even then, let's say someone releases a book with all your HN comments: you are definitely entitled to sue them for copyright. Here's some info from the BBS era, which is still relevant today: https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

readams 4y ago
But you can still see the code and learn generally how to write code. Maybe you see a style of unit testing in a library, and decide to incorporate the techniques into your own code. This is not a copyright violation. It can't be, or all creative expression would be dead.
- jcelerier 4y ago
  Don't be so sure of that: in music it's now established that getting too close from the "style" of another musician is a copyright violation: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-s-going-on-another-marvin-gaye-62801/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-s-going-on-another-ma...
  - rickydroll 4y ago
    and this ruling will prove to be a disaster for music creation as there will be fewer copyright free spaces for music as time goes on. a similar ruling will also be a disaster for software as our tools of expression are very restricted. code is based on boolean algebra and predicate calculus, practice guides like design patterns and books teaching algorithms and data structures. there are lots of ways to write bad code and only a few for good, correct code. Recognizing this led me to replicating known working code, code I had created, for multiple employers. so who's copyright did I intentionally violate? I think we are attacking the wrong problem WRT ML and copyright. to me, ML shows the foundation on which copyright is built is a lie. we should use ML to break copyright for code.
    - salawat 4y ago
      To hell with only focusing on code. We should break copyright completely and take back the intellectual landscape.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Important distinction - these lawsuits are about copying the "style" of a single song, not a musician's entire output.