9 ms·

The AI process isn't going away, but suits like these will preserve the opportunity for artists and coders alike to get paid for their work or choose the terms

by ISL 4y ago

The AI process isn't going away, but suits like these will preserve the opportunity for artists and coders alike to get paid for their work or choose the terms under which it is shared. Without enforcing copyright rules on AI, it may mean the end of copyright entirely. I share a lot of images under CC-BY-SA-NC and share code under the GPL. If someone can train a model off my work and disregard the terms under which I have shared it, copyright is my only enforcement mechanism.

GaggiX 4y ago
What you mean by "enforcing copyright rules on AI"? Regardless of the tool used if the code used by someone heavily copies (against your license) on your code then it's copyright infringement, the fact that the tool is an AI doesn't really change this fact. But I guess you want to expand the copyright law to consider more than just the final product (code in this case), as it would be original in the vast majority of cases.
kneebonian 4y ago
> it may mean the end of copyright entirely This is a beautiful world, that can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
actsasbuffoon 4y ago
The cat is already out of the bag on that one. You can download several open source text to image AIs and run them on your own computer. You can train new styles and concepts on your own computer in about 20 minutes. You can throw up roadblocks for the big players, but it’s far too spread out to ever be contained again. Ditto for LLMs. Obviously GPT-4 is the best game in town, but I have several LLMs and the code required to use them installed on several machines. Training new data for them can close the gap quite well at the expense of becoming less general. We can’t regulate our way out of this one. That window closed a while ago.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  You can rob banks too... doesn't make it legal.
  - actsasbuffoon 4y ago
    If I rob a bank then you can tell. If I make an AI model on my own computer and train it, how would you ever know? It won’t have a “signature” that can be detected by any kind of AI detection system because I’m the only person who knows it exists. You can make it illegal if you like, but you’ll never be able to enforce it. And other countries are not obligated to follow suit, and will have significant competitive advantages as a result.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      There are plenty of things that you could do 'on the sly' that are illegal. That's doesn't mean they're not illegal, and that doesn't mean that if you are found out (which is hard but not always impossible) that you will be punished. Given that there are plenty of legal ways of making money, why would you pick an illegal one just because you (think you) can? The boundaries of the law are rarely set at what you think you can get away with, but are usually set on some other principle and in between that line and the point where you exist there is plenty of room for prosecution. The jails contain lots of people who thought they 'could get away with it'. Don't be one of those.
    - ISL 4y ago
      At ~$150k per willfully-infringed work, infringement at scale gets expensive real quick. Do you feel lucky? What if a specific version of Stable Diffusion is found to be infringing and there's a way to back-attribute an image to it? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

by ISL 4y ago

GaggiX 4y ago

What you mean by "enforcing copyright rules on AI"? Regardless of the tool used if the code used by someone heavily copies (against your license) on your code then it's copyright infringement, the fact that the tool is an AI doesn't really change this fact. But I guess you want to expand the copyright law to consider more than just the final product (code in this case), as it would be original in the vast majority of cases.

kneebonian 4y ago

> it may mean the end of copyright entirely This is a beautiful world, that can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

actsasbuffoon 4y ago

The cat is already out of the bag on that one. You can download several open source text to image AIs and run them on your own computer. You can train new styles and concepts on your own computer in about 20 minutes. You can throw up roadblocks for the big players, but it’s far too spread out to ever be contained again. Ditto for LLMs. Obviously GPT-4 is the best game in town, but I have several LLMs and the code required to use them installed on several machines. Training new data for them can close the gap quite well at the expense of becoming less general. We can’t regulate our way out of this one. That window closed a while ago.

jacquesm 4y ago
You can rob banks too... doesn't make it legal.
- actsasbuffoon 4y ago
  If I rob a bank then you can tell. If I make an AI model on my own computer and train it, how would you ever know? It won’t have a “signature” that can be detected by any kind of AI detection system because I’m the only person who knows it exists. You can make it illegal if you like, but you’ll never be able to enforce it. And other countries are not obligated to follow suit, and will have significant competitive advantages as a result.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    There are plenty of things that you could do 'on the sly' that are illegal. That's doesn't mean they're not illegal, and that doesn't mean that if you are found out (which is hard but not always impossible) that you will be punished. Given that there are plenty of legal ways of making money, why would you pick an illegal one just because you (think you) can? The boundaries of the law are rarely set at what you think you can get away with, but are usually set on some other principle and in between that line and the point where you exist there is plenty of room for prosecution. The jails contain lots of people who thought they 'could get away with it'. Don't be one of those.
  - ISL 4y ago
    At ~$150k per willfully-infringed work, infringement at scale gets expensive real quick. Do you feel lucky? What if a specific version of Stable Diffusion is found to be infringing and there's a way to back-attribute an image to it? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504