3 ms·
The statement I replied to spoke of the point of copyright being to encourage artists to create more art; not simply "to create more art". But neither of those
by tjr 4y ago
The statement I replied to spoke of the point of copyright being to encourage artists to create more art; not simply "to create more art".
But neither of those is really what's written down, with the (U.S. law) point of copyright being "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
We might could interpret this as, training AI is progress of science, and thus the point of copyright includes training AI. Although I'm not sure that we really need copyright to do that, and accordingly, I doubt that is the intent of the law.
Really, the issue here is may be that copyright law was not formed with AI systems in mind at all, neither as creators nor as consumers, and trying to apply it to AI systems, or to reason about copyright law as it pertains to what AI systems do, doesn't necessarily work very well.
Maybe we need to go back and amend all of our written laws with a phrase like "for humans", just like so many science headlines need to include the phrase "in mice"!
- blibble 4y agothe point of copyright is to allow people to exploit their work for material gain, which in turn benefits society by encouraging people to create works if only Microsoft (OpenAI) are able to exploit works for material gain at the cost of the literally 100% of the rest of society: why should society allow Microsoft to do this? (or even to allow Microsoft to exist at all?)
- newswasboring 4y agoYup I agree. These models should be open by law. Currently the calls for open models is not happening because its the initial chaos time, but as soon as we understand a little bit more there will be either regulation or open source reproductions. I mean LLama already exists, but even that has bullshit license stuff around it.