4 ms·

Humans take in inputs and transform what they learn into distinct outputs. Training data is essentially just a machine doing the same thing. Knowingly scraping

Humans take in inputs and transform what they learn into distinct outputs. Training data is essentially just a machine doing the same thing. Knowingly scraping pirated material would be one thing, but essentially having the machine view publicly-available material is not clearly at odds with existing IP law.

mrweasel 3y ago
And if your output isn't distinct enough from the inputs, you too aren't allowed to claim copyright or sell your work without proper licensing. With the AI we can at least be 100% certain of which input you trained it on and under which licens, making the whole a lot easier to deal with, as compared to humans. The liability is the same, but it's much easier to avoid legal implications, so why not play ball and ensure that you have the correct licenses?
- Matticus_Rex 3y ago
  Have what correct licenses? It's not clear that you need any license to train on data in the vast majority of cases. Having a license to train on it won't guarantee that you can grant your users a license to any particular output, especially given the addition of user input. And most of the utility is in creating outputs that are indeed distinct. So the answer to "why not play ball?" is: 1. It's not clear that it's legally required 2. It would be incredibly expensive and/or slow progress dramatically, or limit you to pre-existing licensed content (e.g. Adobe) which drastically reduces some types of capabilities 3. Given #1, for any company that doesn't have an Adobe-style library, "playing ball" is essentially betting the company that it will become legally required, because on top of developing an AI model you're going to have to become an expert content licensing and documentation studio
__loam 3y ago
What humans do when they learn is a completely separate issue and has absolutely nothing to do with how this technology is regulated.
- Matticus_Rex 3y ago
  It's the most analogous process we have; the courts may not end up treating them the same, but it's unlikely they'll say it has nothing to do with how AI gets regulated.

mrweasel 3y ago

And if your output isn't distinct enough from the inputs, you too aren't allowed to claim copyright or sell your work without proper licensing. With the AI we can at least be 100% certain of which input you trained it on and under which licens, making the whole a lot easier to deal with, as compared to humans. The liability is the same, but it's much easier to avoid legal implications, so why not play ball and ensure that you have the correct licenses?

Matticus_Rex 3y ago
Have what correct licenses? It's not clear that you need any license to train on data in the vast majority of cases. Having a license to train on it won't guarantee that you can grant your users a license to any particular output, especially given the addition of user input. And most of the utility is in creating outputs that are indeed distinct. So the answer to "why not play ball?" is: 1. It's not clear that it's legally required 2. It would be incredibly expensive and/or slow progress dramatically, or limit you to pre-existing licensed content (e.g. Adobe) which drastically reduces some types of capabilities 3. Given #1, for any company that doesn't have an Adobe-style library, "playing ball" is essentially betting the company that it will become legally required, because on top of developing an AI model you're going to have to become an expert content licensing and documentation studio

__loam 3y ago

What humans do when they learn is a completely separate issue and has absolutely nothing to do with how this technology is regulated.

Matticus_Rex 3y ago
It's the most analogous process we have; the courts may not end up treating them the same, but it's unlikely they'll say it has nothing to do with how AI gets regulated.