9 ms·

That incorrectly presumes that you[1] can make any law you want, have it enforced, and not piss off the vast majority of people or damage the fabric of free soc

That incorrectly presumes that you[1] can make any law you want, have it enforced, and not piss off the vast majority of people or damage the fabric of free society. You can't make any law you want, and keep a free society. You can't tell people they can't train neural nets with publicly available data. You can't tell people they can't run something like stable diffusion without getting output approved by some approved entity. This is a line in the sand. If lawmakers are coerced into passing such laws, it will consolidate almost all future power (computing, language, speech, images, and video will all be heavily dependent on potentially copyrighted AI output) in the hands of government or corporate authority. [1] for all the people complaining about this: a) That's the collective "you", not the parent poster. b) The majority of people are not involved in Congress's decision to pass or not pass legislation. What moves the needle is the representative's own intuition (often flawed), or relatively small groups of people who have been motivated to contact their legislators, or corporate lobbying.

lwhi 4y ago
We can change the licencing models used to release work into the public domain. In order to do so, we need the conversation and we need to educate inorder to have the conversation in the first place. Law is evolving.
mejutoco 4y ago
> That incorrectly presumes that you can make any law you want, have it enforced, and not piss off the vast majority of people OPs "we" _is_ the vast majority of people. You are answering as if OP said "I". Of course OPs implementation is complicated, but they are not presuming you can make any law you want.
flohofwoe 4y ago
The parent wrote "We the people", not "I" nor "the government" nor "some corporation".
ben_w 4y ago
Analogy time: Arguing if a new tech is legal is like saying the Earth is flat. Arguing that we can create and alter the laws and should therefore be discussing if we want this tech to be legal, that's like saying the Earth is a sphere. Both are wrong, but treating them as equivalent is even more wrong than both of them. > You can't make any law you want, and keep a free society. You can't tell people they can't train neural nets with publicly available data. You can't tell people they can't run something like stable diffusion without getting output approved by some approved entity. Depends what you count as "a free society". There are things which I'm not allowed to take photographs of or record videos of, such as the screen of a cinema while it's playing the latest superhero film. There are communications I am not allowed to make, such as the sequence of bits required to recreate even an approximation of the new song from that famous pop singer everyone likes. There is data I'm not allowed to be given or store, like a random stranger's medical records. You're allowed to be an anarchist and say those things should be legal, but most people don't really care very much about any of that — closest we get is people campaigning to "keep memes legal". Hmm. I'm no lawyer, but there's probably one here: what even is the legal status of companies selling the service of searchable archives of screenshots with text on them and short video clips? Is that "fair use" or "probably copyright infringement but nobody cares" or "they all need to be licensed, there was a court case"? (I assume it varies by jurisdiction, an answer in any will do).
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > There are things which I'm not allowed to take photographs of ... But photography isn't illegal per se. You don't need a license to have and legally use a camera. Taking some pictures may constitute a crime, but it won't be simply having the camera and clicking the shutter button. > There is data I'm not allowed to be given or store, like a random stranger's medical records. Not really. If I give you my medical PII you've committed no crime. Even if you store it you only may be liable. > There are communications I am not allowed to make, such as the sequence of bits in copyrighted material] If you intend to interact with the media it encodes then yes, but if you're a dev and I send you a test vector you can't be expected to know what those bits encode. > > You can't make any law you want, and keep a free society. You can't tell people they can't train neural nets on public data You can't tell people they can't add public numbers. Training an AI is all math and in theory could be done on paper. Having laws that would proactively make training an AI on public data illegal would make our society not free. Public data wouldn't mean anything, because the public wouldn't be able to read it. Training an AI is so vague that making notes about a text could qualify. If the courts tried to enforce such a law non-selectively it would criminalize everyone. > You're allowed to be an anarchist and say those things should be legal Anarchists don't believe more things should be legal, they think there should be less or no laws. It's quite different. Laws are supposed to recognize and punish damages, not to broadly prohibit new technologies that sound scary when they were invented.

lwhi 4y ago

We can change the licencing models used to release work into the public domain. In order to do so, we need the conversation and we need to educate inorder to have the conversation in the first place. Law is evolving.

mejutoco 4y ago

> That incorrectly presumes that you can make any law you want, have it enforced, and not piss off the vast majority of people OPs "we" _is_ the vast majority of people. You are answering as if OP said "I". Of course OPs implementation is complicated, but they are not presuming you can make any law you want.

flohofwoe 4y ago

The parent wrote "We the people", not "I" nor "the government" nor "some corporation".

ben_w 4y ago

Analogy time: Arguing if a new tech is legal is like saying the Earth is flat. Arguing that we can create and alter the laws and should therefore be discussing if we want this tech to be legal, that's like saying the Earth is a sphere. Both are wrong, but treating them as equivalent is even more wrong than both of them. > You can't make any law you want, and keep a free society. You can't tell people they can't train neural nets with publicly available data. You can't tell people they can't run something like stable diffusion without getting output approved by some approved entity. Depends what you count as "a free society". There are things which I'm not allowed to take photographs of or record videos of, such as the screen of a cinema while it's playing the latest superhero film. There are communications I am not allowed to make, such as the sequence of bits required to recreate even an approximation of the new song from that famous pop singer everyone likes. There is data I'm not allowed to be given or store, like a random stranger's medical records. You're allowed to be an anarchist and say those things should be legal, but most people don't really care very much about any of that — closest we get is people campaigning to "keep memes legal". Hmm. I'm no lawyer, but there's probably one here: what even is the legal status of companies selling the service of searchable archives of screenshots with text on them and short video clips? Is that "fair use" or "probably copyright infringement but nobody cares" or "they all need to be licensed, there was a court case"? (I assume it varies by jurisdiction, an answer in any will do).

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> There are things which I'm not allowed to take photographs of ... But photography isn't illegal per se. You don't need a license to have and legally use a camera. Taking some pictures may constitute a crime, but it won't be simply having the camera and clicking the shutter button. > There is data I'm not allowed to be given or store, like a random stranger's medical records. Not really. If I give you my medical PII you've committed no crime. Even if you store it you only may be liable. > There are communications I am not allowed to make, such as the sequence of bits in copyrighted material] If you intend to interact with the media it encodes then yes, but if you're a dev and I send you a test vector you can't be expected to know what those bits encode. > > You can't make any law you want, and keep a free society. You can't tell people they can't train neural nets on public data You can't tell people they can't add public numbers. Training an AI is all math and in theory could be done on paper. Having laws that would proactively make training an AI on public data illegal would make our society not free. Public data wouldn't mean anything, because the public wouldn't be able to read it. Training an AI is so vague that making notes about a text could qualify. If the courts tried to enforce such a law non-selectively it would criminalize everyone. > You're allowed to be an anarchist and say those things should be legal Anarchists don't believe more things should be legal, they think there should be less or no laws. It's quite different. Laws are supposed to recognize and punish damages, not to broadly prohibit new technologies that sound scary when they were invented.