3 ms·

I believe there are couple different aspects to “it’s AI training legal same as human” argument: 1. Copyright is only granted to creative elements; lots of pro

I believe there are couple different aspects to “it’s AI training legal same as human” argument: 1. Copyright is only granted to creative elements; lots of program codes are supposedly un-copyrightable, though no one wants to fight on that ground. 2. It is lawful in many jurisdictions to effectively steal and train AI with even copyrighted materials, for the sake of humanity at large; same supposedly not apply to the output. But AI-supportive clusters tends to conflate between the two. 3. AI training processes, stochastic gradient descent and all, are only called “learning” and/or “training” by convention; there is no public consent that it is same as how the word is supposedly defined, though we generally don’t scare quote airplanes flying.

ml-anon 4y ago
on 3, the convention could have just as easily gone a different way i.e. it could have converged to model "fitting" using the statistical parlance or the sklearn convention. Further if you take the math seriously most of these models are "just" fitting probability distributions to data. Also, in part it depends greatly on the objective function used. In GPT style models the objective is to precisely copy from input to output, token by token. I think its extremely bad-faith to argue that this has any relationship to human learning or learning objectives. you shouldn't take the math seriously and I'm not being dismissive with the word "just" in scare quotes. However the community somehow wants to have its cake an eat it too.