4 ms·

You understand these things have a very very wide interpretation scope here that has yet to be tested in court. I wouldn’t make these statements so confidently

You understand these things have a very very wide interpretation scope here that has yet to be tested in court. I wouldn’t make these statements so confidently as courts tend to reinterpret the law significantly for the balance of societal factors when serious technology changes occur.

itake 3y ago
AI generated work is not copyright-able. I guess the courts later could disagree though. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
- belter 3y ago
  If the AI generates a new Eric Clapton album, with the same similar voice and guitar playing style?
  - itake 3y ago
    your example doesn't have to be AI generated. Human cover-bands play Song X in the style of Y all the time.
- anticensor 3y ago
  They are in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-copyright-and-patents/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-copyright-and-patents https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intel...
fnordpiglet 3y ago
This is true - afaik there’s been no specific rulings on whether training models on copyright material is a violation. But to my mind it harkens back to stuff like xerox and such where the tool itself isn’t the violating thing it’s the use of the tool. Likewise, derivative works are often largely reproductions with minor variations and are protected under fair use. A model that takes enormous amounts of data and distills it into a tiny vector representation way below the information theoretic levels for any meaningful fidelity and mixes and overlaps data in a way that the original data isn’t plausibly stored in the model… I’m definitely not going to wager my life that’s fair use, but I would wager my company on it.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  In the history of media law I’ve seen judged lean into whatever interpretation balances the ecosystem more than what is “literally the law”. The law is meant to serve people not the other way around. I hope judges will understand the contribution and theft can’t just be “haha fuck humanity love, openAI”
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Ok, what about the open source and research models? I wouldn’t wager much on openai keeping a lead indefinitely. Certainly not to establish case law on what’s a pretty new technology (at least in its current use)
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Yes, laws are about politics and dispute resolution more than reasoning or correctness. Focusing on the pure logic is a trap for the computationally inclined.
  - nl 3y ago
    I want to train my own LLM on public but copyrighted data. I think this is serving humanity (and fucking OpenAI). I also think it is ethical because there's a big difference between "learning from" and "copying". Your proposed reading of the law means only big tech will be able to afford the license fees to train on large amounts of data.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      How do YOU plan on compensating those whose labor helped you? I bet you don’t. Same thing you are just imagining being David rather than Goliath makes it ok for you.
      - mrtranscendence 3y ago
        It's not always necessary to compensate those whose labor helped you. I haven't compensated many of the open source projects I use, for example, even those who clearly want me to (with nagging pop-ups). If the use of copyrightable material to train a model is legal, and it does not legally require compensation, it might be difficult to argue that the use of such material should be compensated or else. It would depend IMO on whether there are norms in place for this kind of thing, and I don't necessarily see wide agreement.

itake 3y ago

AI generated work is not copyright-able. I guess the courts later could disagree though. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

belter 3y ago
If the AI generates a new Eric Clapton album, with the same similar voice and guitar playing style?
- itake 3y ago
  your example doesn't have to be AI generated. Human cover-bands play Song X in the style of Y all the time.
anticensor 3y ago
They are in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-copyright-and-patents/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-copyright-and-patents https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intel...

fnordpiglet 3y ago

This is true - afaik there’s been no specific rulings on whether training models on copyright material is a violation. But to my mind it harkens back to stuff like xerox and such where the tool itself isn’t the violating thing it’s the use of the tool. Likewise, derivative works are often largely reproductions with minor variations and are protected under fair use. A model that takes enormous amounts of data and distills it into a tiny vector representation way below the information theoretic levels for any meaningful fidelity and mixes and overlaps data in a way that the original data isn’t plausibly stored in the model… I’m definitely not going to wager my life that’s fair use, but I would wager my company on it.

tsunamifury 3y ago
In the history of media law I’ve seen judged lean into whatever interpretation balances the ecosystem more than what is “literally the law”. The law is meant to serve people not the other way around. I hope judges will understand the contribution and theft can’t just be “haha fuck humanity love, openAI”
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Ok, what about the open source and research models? I wouldn’t wager much on openai keeping a lead indefinitely. Certainly not to establish case law on what’s a pretty new technology (at least in its current use)
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Yes, laws are about politics and dispute resolution more than reasoning or correctness. Focusing on the pure logic is a trap for the computationally inclined.
- nl 3y ago
  I want to train my own LLM on public but copyrighted data. I think this is serving humanity (and fucking OpenAI). I also think it is ethical because there's a big difference between "learning from" and "copying". Your proposed reading of the law means only big tech will be able to afford the license fees to train on large amounts of data.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    How do YOU plan on compensating those whose labor helped you? I bet you don’t. Same thing you are just imagining being David rather than Goliath makes it ok for you.
    - mrtranscendence 3y ago
      It's not always necessary to compensate those whose labor helped you. I haven't compensated many of the open source projects I use, for example, even those who clearly want me to (with nagging pop-ups). If the use of copyrightable material to train a model is legal, and it does not legally require compensation, it might be difficult to argue that the use of such material should be compensated or else. It would depend IMO on whether there are norms in place for this kind of thing, and I don't necessarily see wide agreement.