3 ms·

An AI product - more specifically, the model weights - is a derivative work of the original works used for training; I don't think that's so obvious. Why would

An AI product - more specifically, the model weights - is a derivative work of the original works used for training; I don't think that's so obvious. Why would it be so, any more than for humans who learn from material? I mean, one might ask if your very comment here is a derivative work of the aggregate corpus of material you've previously read on the subjects of copyright, open source licensing, and AI. I suspect most of us would agree that it isn't so, but why treat the model weights of an AI so differently than the synaptic weights in your brain?

pbalcer 3y ago
When you want a clean room non-GPL implementation of something GPL that already exists, you ask the developers not to look at the original. I don't see how this is any different.
- mindcrime 3y ago
  It's completely different. You're talking about re-implementing a specific piece of software. And that whole "clean room" thing isn't an absolute anyway... that's the level of paranoia you engage if you want to be super duper sure that you can't be accused of copying the original. What I'm talking about is closer to "you fire up your IDE (or Emacs) right now, and churn out 250 lines of code for some arbitrary piece of software. Is it a derivative work of every pieces of software whose source code you have previously look at?" Note that I'm not referring to the case where the AI spits out code that is identical to code taken from another project. I'm aware that that sometimes happens, and that is obviously a problem, just like it would if a human did it. What I'm arguing is only that it probably should not be taken as a given that AI generated code is automatically considered a derivative work. Here's a thought experiment: say an AI emits a single line of code tomorrow. You examine it, and then spend weeks, months, or even years searching all the open source code that's "out there". You fail to identify a line in any existing code-base that was clearly the upstream source for the line from the AI. So is that line a derivative work? If so, of what?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    If 100 experienced C devs are asked to write strcpy, some of those implementations will be identical and that fact will not indicate any copyright infringement has occurred.
- Natsu 3y ago
  This seems rather unworkable in general if there's no way to learn from anything without infringing somehow if you use what you learned. And I mean that to apply to humans as well as AI, because I'm not convinced that 'learning' is actually different in the two cases.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  What often happens is that you ask one set of devs to look at the GPL code and draw specifications of the functionality and have a second (non-intersecting) set of devs do the implementation without directly referring to the GPL code, but indirectly doing so by using the specification.
cornholio 3y ago
Because copyright, and law in general, is an expression of the political agreement reached amongst the members of our society. It does not exist in the absolute, there are no legal principles that transcend humanity, law is a human creation to arbitrate our collaboration and conflicts. Therefore, in the legal sense, an algorithm does not "learn", despite any functional analogy you can make with human learning, because an algorithm is not a party to the social contract that established said law; its only "rights" are an extension of the legal right of its author/proprietor. Your "learning" right does not cover, for example, your tape player recording a performance and playing it back at later date to some commercial audience. You have a right to hear and learn the song, you can play it back from memory, but your tape recorder does not, it's a tool, just like your fancy AI machine. This will continue to hold true despite any advancements in AI, up to the moment when synthetic entities will acquire distinct legal rights.
- mindcrime 3y ago
  Therefore, in the legal sense, an algorithm does not "learn", Are you saying there is actual case law / precedent establishing that, or is that just your personal theory? If the former, I'd love to see any such citations, as I was not aware of those developments. Your "learning" right does not cover, for example, your tape player recording a performance and playing it back at later date to some commercial audience. That's pretty much a straw-man here. I'm not talking about cases where an AI reproduces an existing work exactly. That is problematic from a copyright standpoint for both a machine OR a human.
- est31 3y ago
  > You have a right to hear and learn the song, you can play it back from memory, but your tape recorder does not, it's a tool, just like your fancy AI machine. There is two different copyrights, one for the melody/text, and one for the recording. Sometimes they have different owners who fight. The most famous recent example is the Taylor Swift controversy I guess. She ended up re-recording some of her old songs so that she owns the rights to the new recording. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_controversy#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_controver...
eviks 3y ago
> Why would it be so, any more than for humans who learn from material? Because AI isn't human, and there is no credible argument that it's anything close to a human, and unless you do establish that connection, you can't just auto-apply the logic/intuition we've developed for humans to AI
- circuit10 3y ago
  I think it does apply here because the point is that learning isn't direct copying and the knowledge you get from it isn't copyrightable, and AI could be the same in instances where it's not directly copying
faangsticle 3y ago
Humans aren't computer programs, for one.

pbalcer 3y ago

When you want a clean room non-GPL implementation of something GPL that already exists, you ask the developers not to look at the original. I don't see how this is any different.

mindcrime 3y ago
It's completely different. You're talking about re-implementing a specific piece of software. And that whole "clean room" thing isn't an absolute anyway... that's the level of paranoia you engage if you want to be super duper sure that you can't be accused of copying the original. What I'm talking about is closer to "you fire up your IDE (or Emacs) right now, and churn out 250 lines of code for some arbitrary piece of software. Is it a derivative work of every pieces of software whose source code you have previously look at?" Note that I'm not referring to the case where the AI spits out code that is identical to code taken from another project. I'm aware that that sometimes happens, and that is obviously a problem, just like it would if a human did it. What I'm arguing is only that it probably should not be taken as a given that AI generated code is automatically considered a derivative work. Here's a thought experiment: say an AI emits a single line of code tomorrow. You examine it, and then spend weeks, months, or even years searching all the open source code that's "out there". You fail to identify a line in any existing code-base that was clearly the upstream source for the line from the AI. So is that line a derivative work? If so, of what?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  If 100 experienced C devs are asked to write strcpy, some of those implementations will be identical and that fact will not indicate any copyright infringement has occurred.
Natsu 3y ago
This seems rather unworkable in general if there's no way to learn from anything without infringing somehow if you use what you learned. And I mean that to apply to humans as well as AI, because I'm not convinced that 'learning' is actually different in the two cases.
sokoloff 3y ago
What often happens is that you ask one set of devs to look at the GPL code and draw specifications of the functionality and have a second (non-intersecting) set of devs do the implementation without directly referring to the GPL code, but indirectly doing so by using the specification.

cornholio 3y ago

Because copyright, and law in general, is an expression of the political agreement reached amongst the members of our society. It does not exist in the absolute, there are no legal principles that transcend humanity, law is a human creation to arbitrate our collaboration and conflicts. Therefore, in the legal sense, an algorithm does not "learn", despite any functional analogy you can make with human learning, because an algorithm is not a party to the social contract that established said law; its only "rights" are an extension of the legal right of its author/proprietor. Your "learning" right does not cover, for example, your tape player recording a performance and playing it back at later date to some commercial audience. You have a right to hear and learn the song, you can play it back from memory, but your tape recorder does not, it's a tool, just like your fancy AI machine. This will continue to hold true despite any advancements in AI, up to the moment when synthetic entities will acquire distinct legal rights.

mindcrime 3y ago
Therefore, in the legal sense, an algorithm does not "learn", Are you saying there is actual case law / precedent establishing that, or is that just your personal theory? If the former, I'd love to see any such citations, as I was not aware of those developments. Your "learning" right does not cover, for example, your tape player recording a performance and playing it back at later date to some commercial audience. That's pretty much a straw-man here. I'm not talking about cases where an AI reproduces an existing work exactly. That is problematic from a copyright standpoint for both a machine OR a human.
est31 3y ago
> You have a right to hear and learn the song, you can play it back from memory, but your tape recorder does not, it's a tool, just like your fancy AI machine. There is two different copyrights, one for the melody/text, and one for the recording. Sometimes they have different owners who fight. The most famous recent example is the Taylor Swift controversy I guess. She ended up re-recording some of her old songs so that she owns the rights to the new recording. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_controversy#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_controver...

eviks 3y ago

> Why would it be so, any more than for humans who learn from material? Because AI isn't human, and there is no credible argument that it's anything close to a human, and unless you do establish that connection, you can't just auto-apply the logic/intuition we've developed for humans to AI

circuit10 3y ago
I think it does apply here because the point is that learning isn't direct copying and the knowledge you get from it isn't copyrightable, and AI could be the same in instances where it's not directly copying

faangsticle 3y ago

Humans aren't computer programs, for one.