6 ms·

Is this any different than the copyright lawsuits against image-generating AIs? Just as when a human views many pictures and is influenced by them in creating

Is this any different than the copyright lawsuits against image-generating AIs? Just as when a human views many pictures and is influenced by them in creating their own work, so does, e.g., Stable Diffusion take ideas and influence from existing works to generate new works. And except in very extreme cases, nobody claims that being influenced by someone is a copyright violation. Similarly, I can sit around reading articles on the web all day, then go to the local pub and pontificate, and nobody is going to claim that I should be paying those website I read just because I plan to talk about them later. Same way, these LLM AIs are "learning" from what they read, and then spouting off based on that later. I can't see any difference. Indeed, the verisimilitude is heightened by the fact that these AIs often don't really know what they're talking about, and just make crap up - just like our hypothetical human, pontificating in the pub.

thwayunion 4y ago
The analogy to humans is probably a trap. In the early days of software security there were a lot of analogies to physical penetration. These analogies mislead and confused statutory facts with moral claims. In the wholeness of time, at least the adults now know that computer security is different and understand how the CFAA and related statutes work in practice. We also understand how laws that pre-dated computers interact with our new technological realities. In computer security, there's usually no need for analogy at this point. At least not once you find yourself in a courtroom. Models aren't human brains. The law will think of them differently and treat them differently. I'm not sure how these lawsuits and class actions will shake out, to be honest, but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub.
- ekidd 4y ago
  > but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub. Perhaps I am old and cynical, but I fear that we'll establish harsh new restrictions on LLMs—and then gradually apply those restrictions to humans over time. "I am sorry, you have read too much science fiction, and it has indirectly inspired your own writing. You owe mandatory royalties to a trade association." "Your paintings are clearly pointillist. You are infringing on the rights of the Monet estate."
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    No need to be cynical or expect it to be slow. Multiple companies will leap at this precident if it is set. They've attempted to do it in the past a few times, but right to repair laws and such have kept them away. Imagine Nintendo banning emulators as one example.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    It's long been a tenant of copyright law that genres or styles cannot be copyrighted. To frame the issue with LLMs as being of this nature, is to end run the problem, and just assume that the models are only taking the style or genre from a work. Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring.
    - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
      > Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring. We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.” -- Edsger W. Dijkstra Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        >We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. LOL is this an actual response? What did you substantively say here? Because I don't see anything. >Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field. That's not a legal argument. I'm not sure how that isn't clear. But you can't go "Your honor, people thought no one would win at chess, therefore, this isn't copying because it is exhibiting thought" Do you read yourself at all?
gjsman-1000 4y ago
To anyone suing over Stable Diffusion, or GitHub Copilot, or ChatGPT: Name one instance where US Courts shut down a new, growing technology field (not one particular company, a growing field or industry) to protect copyright interests. You can find plenty of cases where US Courts refused to do that, even if the copyright status quo was challenged. Sony vs Universal over VHS time-shifting. Lawsuits about ISPs permitting people to access copyrighted material illegally. Lawsuits about CD ripping. Lawsuits before DMCA 512 was a thing. All resulted in the copyright industry generally losing. Here we are in 2022: ISPs aren't accomplices in copyright infringement for what you do online. CD ripping is legal for private use even if RIAA is still irritated about it. YouTube hasn't been smashed with claims of contributory infringement every time someone uploads one infringing video. Photoshop isn't considered responsible for abuses. And so forth...
- thwayunion 4y ago
  IMO the Aero case qualifies; that definitely would've turned into an entire cottage industry with several competitors and different business models if SCOTUS didn't kill off Aero at birth: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-puts-aereo-out-of-business/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-pu...
- nickfromseattle 4y ago
  Regardless of your opinion on ethics, if LLMs are allowed to scrape/use other people's content without sending traffic, it means LLMs will capture most of the value of every new piece of content created by humans. Do you think the world is a better place if the value of all content flows primarily into a handful of hyper scale tech companies?
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    As the saying goes, we're all standing on the shoulders of giants. It's a feature, not a bug, that we - and maybe now our created AIs - are able to build on top of others.
    - 4y ago
freejazz 4y ago
You can't just baselessly analogize an algorithm to what goes on in the human mind and call it a legal argument. That's not going to fly at all.

thwayunion 4y ago

The analogy to humans is probably a trap. In the early days of software security there were a lot of analogies to physical penetration. These analogies mislead and confused statutory facts with moral claims. In the wholeness of time, at least the adults now know that computer security is different and understand how the CFAA and related statutes work in practice. We also understand how laws that pre-dated computers interact with our new technological realities. In computer security, there's usually no need for analogy at this point. At least not once you find yourself in a courtroom. Models aren't human brains. The law will think of them differently and treat them differently. I'm not sure how these lawsuits and class actions will shake out, to be honest, but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub.

ekidd 4y ago
> but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub. Perhaps I am old and cynical, but I fear that we'll establish harsh new restrictions on LLMs—and then gradually apply those restrictions to humans over time. "I am sorry, you have read too much science fiction, and it has indirectly inspired your own writing. You owe mandatory royalties to a trade association." "Your paintings are clearly pointillist. You are infringing on the rights of the Monet estate."
- bioemerl 4y ago
  No need to be cynical or expect it to be slow. Multiple companies will leap at this precident if it is set. They've attempted to do it in the past a few times, but right to repair laws and such have kept them away. Imagine Nintendo banning emulators as one example.
- freejazz 4y ago
  It's long been a tenant of copyright law that genres or styles cannot be copyrighted. To frame the issue with LLMs as being of this nature, is to end run the problem, and just assume that the models are only taking the style or genre from a work. Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    > Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring. We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.” -- Edsger W. Dijkstra Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      >We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. LOL is this an actual response? What did you substantively say here? Because I don't see anything. >Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field. That's not a legal argument. I'm not sure how that isn't clear. But you can't go "Your honor, people thought no one would win at chess, therefore, this isn't copying because it is exhibiting thought" Do you read yourself at all?

gjsman-1000 4y ago

To anyone suing over Stable Diffusion, or GitHub Copilot, or ChatGPT: Name one instance where US Courts shut down a new, growing technology field (not one particular company, a growing field or industry) to protect copyright interests. You can find plenty of cases where US Courts refused to do that, even if the copyright status quo was challenged. Sony vs Universal over VHS time-shifting. Lawsuits about ISPs permitting people to access copyrighted material illegally. Lawsuits about CD ripping. Lawsuits before DMCA 512 was a thing. All resulted in the copyright industry generally losing. Here we are in 2022: ISPs aren't accomplices in copyright infringement for what you do online. CD ripping is legal for private use even if RIAA is still irritated about it. YouTube hasn't been smashed with claims of contributory infringement every time someone uploads one infringing video. Photoshop isn't considered responsible for abuses. And so forth...

thwayunion 4y ago
IMO the Aero case qualifies; that definitely would've turned into an entire cottage industry with several competitors and different business models if SCOTUS didn't kill off Aero at birth: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-puts-aereo-out-of-business/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-pu...
nickfromseattle 4y ago
Regardless of your opinion on ethics, if LLMs are allowed to scrape/use other people's content without sending traffic, it means LLMs will capture most of the value of every new piece of content created by humans. Do you think the world is a better place if the value of all content flows primarily into a handful of hyper scale tech companies?
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  As the saying goes, we're all standing on the shoulders of giants. It's a feature, not a bug, that we - and maybe now our created AIs - are able to build on top of others.
  - 4y ago

freejazz 4y ago

You can't just baselessly analogize an algorithm to what goes on in the human mind and call it a legal argument. That's not going to fly at all.