8 ms·
> answer questions for people without having to buy the book.. is that really fair? Yes. It's fair because that happens all the time with non-AI intelligences
by torstenvl 3y ago
> answer questions for people without having to buy the book.. is that really fair?
Yes.
It's fair because that happens all the time with non-AI intelligences (i.e., people). No author has the right to prevent me from discussing a book with someone. If I were a clinician and incorporated that exercise into my practice, as long as I wasn't copying any content (e.g., worksheets, scoring tables, etc.), then I owe nothing to the author.
It's also a fundamental principle of copyright law, at least in the United States.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
- whateveracct 3y agoAI and humans aren't the same thing. Even if we do anthropomorphize AI.
- blibble 3y ago> No author has the right to prevent me from discussing a book with someone. a lossy compression function is not "someone"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 3y agoOh? And what section of title 17 does that ostensible distinction implicate?
- nicenewtemp84 3y agoAt what point is it discussing a subject, vs basically verbatim listing things, methods, reasoning from a book?
- torstenvl 3y agoReproduction of the precise form of expression is the only thing covered by copyright. Facts are not protected by any IP law in the United States. Ideas may be protected by patent law, if the idea constitutes a novel, non-obvious invention.
- nickfromseattle 3y agoAre you OK with the developers of LLMs capturing the most value of every incremental piece of content created by humans in perpetuity? The difference is scale. A human can use their learnings from copyrighted work to get a job making $80,000/year. An LLM can use their learnings from copyrighted work to become the biggest, most profitable company ever.
- satvikpendem 3y ago> Are you OK with the developers of LLMs capturing the most value of every incremental piece of content created by humans in perpetuity? If it helps humanity as a whole, sure. Artificial gate-keeping based on economic factors such as people being able to keep their $80k jobs is not justifiable to me to stop technological progress; one could have said the exact same thing centuries ago with the advent of any number of inventions.
- throw74774 3y agoHow does it help humanity as a whole if nobody is able to capture any value for their work?
- satvikpendem 3y agoWhat kind of "value" are they capturing? In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. I don't want anyone necessarily trying to capture rent-seeking "value" out of their work that cannot be extended by others. That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general.
- throw74774 3y agoYou cannot extend anyone’s work if you have no food or resources.
- satvikpendem 3y ago