3 ms·

IANAL but a quote from a Cornell article says > The five fundamental rights that the bill gives to copyright owners—the exclusive rights of reproduction, adapt

IANAL but a quote from a Cornell article says > The five fundamental rights that the bill gives to copyright owners—the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display—are stated generally in section 106. Seems it can be argued that generative AI violates many of these rights. Again I’m not a lawyer so I’m sure there’s some historic legal stuff that impacts the interpretation - but taking a copyrighted work and allowing a neural network to adapt it in any way seems like a clear violation?

MrThoughtful 3y ago
Does AI really "adapt" a "work"? Or does it learn from looking at the world and then create its own works, just like a human does?
- criddell 3y ago
  An AI learns by looking at the world the same way my camcorder does when I take it to a movie theater and point it at the screen.
  - MrThoughtful 3y ago
    It's actually the other way round. The camcorder can reproduce every scene in detail. But it can not tell you the plot. AI can tell you about the plot, but not reproduce detailed scenes. So this is a prime example of how AI is humanlike and not copying anything.
  - gruez 3y ago
    The analogy falls apart when you consider that for instance stable diffusion was trained on 2.3 billion images, but the model itself is only around 10GB. That only works out to be 4 bytes per image. Clearly it's not the same as pointing a camcorder at a movie screen.
    - Filligree 3y ago
      That’s 10GB with everything included, including training weights. The models most people use are 2 or 4 GB.
    - yeck 3y ago
      You could argue that training a model is essentially a lossy compression algorithm resulting a compressed artifact that can be non-deterministically decompressed.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        So are humans. If I were to draw a Mickey mouse from memory, would it be amenable to copyright laws?
        Filligree 3y ago
        Well, yes.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That's the trillion dollar question. My belief is that generative AI probably breaks both the letter and the spirit of the law, but it also renders the law pointless because its existence, at whatever quality level, means there's no longer a commercial justification for copyright to exist to protect creative output of that level or lower. But there might be an evolutionary/signalling reason (think peacock tail) that overrides the commercial. https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-copyright/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-c...

MrThoughtful 3y ago

Does AI really "adapt" a "work"? Or does it learn from looking at the world and then create its own works, just like a human does?

criddell 3y ago
An AI learns by looking at the world the same way my camcorder does when I take it to a movie theater and point it at the screen.
- MrThoughtful 3y ago
  It's actually the other way round. The camcorder can reproduce every scene in detail. But it can not tell you the plot. AI can tell you about the plot, but not reproduce detailed scenes. So this is a prime example of how AI is humanlike and not copying anything.
- gruez 3y ago
  The analogy falls apart when you consider that for instance stable diffusion was trained on 2.3 billion images, but the model itself is only around 10GB. That only works out to be 4 bytes per image. Clearly it's not the same as pointing a camcorder at a movie screen.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    That’s 10GB with everything included, including training weights. The models most people use are 2 or 4 GB.
  - yeck 3y ago
    You could argue that training a model is essentially a lossy compression algorithm resulting a compressed artifact that can be non-deterministically decompressed.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      So are humans. If I were to draw a Mickey mouse from memory, would it be amenable to copyright laws?
      - Filligree 3y ago
        Well, yes.
ben_w 3y ago
That's the trillion dollar question. My belief is that generative AI probably breaks both the letter and the spirit of the law, but it also renders the law pointless because its existence, at whatever quality level, means there's no longer a commercial justification for copyright to exist to protect creative output of that level or lower. But there might be an evolutionary/signalling reason (think peacock tail) that overrides the commercial. https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-copyright/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/10/09/an-end-to-c...