3 ms·
Do you think people should be allowed to learn from books we read, music we hear, etc? If we’re extending copyright to be not only about reproduction of the wo
by brookst 3y ago
Do you think people should be allowed to learn from books we read, music we hear, etc?
If we’re extending copyright to be not only about reproduction of the work, but also providing part of a large knowledge base for future creators to build upon… why does it matter if it’s a neural network or human being doing the learning?
I personally hope the copyright maximalists fail, because if they succeed in making “learning from a copyrighted work” without paying illegal, we end up in a dark place indeed.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoI think AI aren’t people, and that they’re not even AI: it’s machine learning, and ML is a subset of AI that we haven’t really broken out of. ML is a tool, and asking whether ML should be allowed to learn on copyrighted work is equivalent to asking whether your computer is allowed to contain a copyrighted work: “it depends.” I’m in favor of getting rid of copyright entirely, since it’s become a far cry from what it was intended to be, but we have to acknowledge both sides of the arguments in order to proceed.
- throwaway2037 3y agoI’m in favor of getting rid of copyright entirely This is extreme to me. What is your proposed replacement?
- JieJie 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_alternatives
- spacephysics 3y agoI agree we should either get rid of, or very least overhaul copyright. However, the line in the sand I draw is giving any kind of human-based rights to ML or AI. People already are thinking ChatGPT is close to human intelligence, and we know we haven’t even seen what’s truly possible. My fear is the typical oversimplification of complex technology will lend us to giving human rights to programs, and lead to a whole host of issues. We need to stop anthropomorphizing technology until we really hit a philosophical quandary. Giving in too early will just give power to less-than-polished tech and either slow down research, or further drain a country’s resources
- stale2002 3y ago> the sand I draw is giving any kind of human-based rights to ML or AI. Ok, but this isn't about giving rights to AI. Instead this is about given rights to humans to use AI. If you make a law about this stuff, at the end of the day, it all trickles down to allowing or disallow human actions.
- owisd 3y agoThe rules are already different for humans and machines. If I memorise a copyrighted book then that’s not copyright infringement, but if I store a copy on a hard drive then that is. You ask why distinguishing between humans and machines matters and then answer your own question: “we end up in a dark place”.
- JohnFen 3y agoIANAL, but as I understand it, the difference is because copyright is about the transmission of the work. If you memorize a work, you have used the work in accordance with copyright law: you were authorized to read the work. If you write out a copy of the work you memorized and give it to someone, you've broken copyright law. If you store a copy of a work you were authorized to have, you have not broken copyright. However, if you download a book that you have no authorization for, that is a violation of copyright. In other words, it's not about where the work is "stored" or whether or not humans were involved, it's about the transmission of that work between parties.
- brookst 3y agoActually, if you memorize that book and then type it in to your own computer, you're fine. So maybe a bit of a rework on that line of argument.