6 ms·
> Does copyright law give you the exclusive right to train a neural network with your work? Does copyright law give openai the exclusive right to exploit the o
by slim 3y ago
> Does copyright law give you the exclusive right to train a neural network with your work?
Does copyright law give openai the exclusive right to exploit the output of ai trained on my data ? (the model, the weights, etc..)
- zarzavat 3y agoThe exclusive right? No. The right? Possibly. Since no court has ruled on the latter question yet, let’s do a choose your own adventure: Say that OpenAI trained a language detection model. The output of the model is simply a single vector that indicates which language that the input was written in. During training they use your copyrighted code as training data. Would you consider that to be infringement? 1) If yes: consider instead of using fancy and scary mathematics like “neural networks”, it is just tabulating and counting keywords. Is it still infringement? 1) If no: what’s different about a neural network that outputs code, vs a neural network that outputs a single vector? Perhaps it’s the output that is infringing, not the weights?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- slim 3y agoI think neither I nor openai should have any exclusive rights and that would lead to the best outcome for humanity. the problem is sam altman is already lobbying to restrict access to ai (which maybe indicates that his lawyers think that they might not have exclusive rights)
- regularfry 3y agoHe's lobbying to build a moat around assets he already has. Rights don't come into it.
- saagarjha 3y agoSeems similar to, say, a device that does radiocarbon dating of a painting and prints the result and one that takes a picture?
- dweinus 3y ago> consider instead of using fancy and scary mathematics like “neural networks”, it is just tabulating and counting keywords. Is it still infringement? I've seen this analogy before. A NN, especially an LLM, is very different in method and outcome. If counting keywords allowed me to replicate copyrighted material, it would probably not be fair use. IANAL, but I imagine the fact that a NN can replicate or compete with the original work makes a difference.
- regularfry 3y agoThere's a core question here: can the AI regurgitate your data? If it can, the AI can be said to be copying what it was trained on (ergo copyright is a factor). If it cannot, it's hard to see how copyright comes into it. How it's trained shouldn't come into it.
- blowski 3y agoThis is the problem, there is no easy analogy. If I’ve learned how to code from an open source course, I don’t breach copyright every time I write code in my career. If I clone the course, just replacing some of the examples and using synonyms then I probably have. ChatGPT is somewhere between these extremes and it’s unclear what the principle should be. Perhaps it’s like learning to play guitar by watching other guitarists, then releasing songs in the same genre.
- rfw300 3y agoThat’s because you’re a human. Copyright and fair use law was built for people, and letting AI models have the same privileges will lead to worse outcomes. What’s so wrong about saying that it isn’t fair use for a machine to learn from your copyrighted data?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- regularfry 3y agoI'm not making an analogy. It's a literal question. If I crank noise through a bunch of matrices and churn out the Mona Lisa because the Mona Lisa was in the training data, I've not painted the Mona Lisa. I've reproduced someone else's work through a fairly tortuous mathematical route. The matrices don't have agency, they can't lay claim to anything. Although I should probably say, for completeness: the matrices don't have agency yet.