6 ms·

I completely agree that expanding copyright only hurts us all. The big companies will be able to work around it. I think if anything, this helps to demonstrate

I completely agree that expanding copyright only hurts us all. The big companies will be able to work around it. I think if anything, this helps to demonstrate the absurdity of ancient copyright law in our modern world. I would rather move in the direction of abolishing copyright rather than in the direction of strengthening it.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
> I completely agree that expanding copyright only hurts us all. As do I, but this is not expanding copyright. This is saying that as long as copyright exists, AI model training has to respect it too, and can't be a laundering operation for license violations. Otherwise, you're giving companies building AI extra permission to ignore Open Source licenses and small copyright holders (e.g. independent artists, authors of stories/comments/text on the Internet), which is an asymmetry in favor of companies with the resources to train huge models. I'm all for abolishing copyright, and I think it is absurd. What I'm against here is the asymmetry of keeping all the harms of copyright around while letting AI training violate it.
- kouteiheika 3y ago
  > Otherwise, you're giving companies building AI extra permission to ignore Open Source licenses and small copyright holders (e.g. independent artists, authors of stories/comments/text on the Internet), which is an asymmetry in favor of companies with the resources to train huge models. From my experience this is incorrect; it's not an asymmetry in favor of companies; if anything it's an asymmetry in favor of small players. How do I know? Because I myself am one of those small players, and because I train machine learning models myself. Not huge ones of course, but ones which need data in the range of e.g. 10~25GB range. As an individual it would be completely impossible to explicitly license this data for training (most of which is owned, mind you, by huge corporations!), while a corporation wouldn't have a problem with it. > What I'm against here is the asymmetry of keeping all the harms of copyright around while letting AI training violate it. This is fair enough. But please beware that the blast radius of entities your proposal would harm is not limited to huge corporations. I would prefer to fundamentally reduce the scope of copyright too instead of carving out special cases for AI training, but we both know that isn't going to happen.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    And the blast radius of AIs continuing to violate licenses is not limited to large companies either, it's harming Open Source developers, independent artists and authors, and similar.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

> I completely agree that expanding copyright only hurts us all. As do I, but this is not expanding copyright. This is saying that as long as copyright exists, AI model training has to respect it too, and can't be a laundering operation for license violations. Otherwise, you're giving companies building AI extra permission to ignore Open Source licenses and small copyright holders (e.g. independent artists, authors of stories/comments/text on the Internet), which is an asymmetry in favor of companies with the resources to train huge models. I'm all for abolishing copyright, and I think it is absurd. What I'm against here is the asymmetry of keeping all the harms of copyright around while letting AI training violate it.

kouteiheika 3y ago
> Otherwise, you're giving companies building AI extra permission to ignore Open Source licenses and small copyright holders (e.g. independent artists, authors of stories/comments/text on the Internet), which is an asymmetry in favor of companies with the resources to train huge models. From my experience this is incorrect; it's not an asymmetry in favor of companies; if anything it's an asymmetry in favor of small players. How do I know? Because I myself am one of those small players, and because I train machine learning models myself. Not huge ones of course, but ones which need data in the range of e.g. 10~25GB range. As an individual it would be completely impossible to explicitly license this data for training (most of which is owned, mind you, by huge corporations!), while a corporation wouldn't have a problem with it. > What I'm against here is the asymmetry of keeping all the harms of copyright around while letting AI training violate it. This is fair enough. But please beware that the blast radius of entities your proposal would harm is not limited to huge corporations. I would prefer to fundamentally reduce the scope of copyright too instead of carving out special cases for AI training, but we both know that isn't going to happen.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  And the blast radius of AIs continuing to violate licenses is not limited to large companies either, it's harming Open Source developers, independent artists and authors, and similar.