4 ms·
I buy a book and give it to my child, they read the book and later write and sell a story influenced by said book. should that be a copyright infringement? how
by permo-w 3y ago
I buy a book and give it to my child, they read the book and later write and sell a story influenced by said book. should that be a copyright infringement?
how about they become a therapist and sell access to knowledge from copyrighted books? should that be an infringement?
what if they sell access to lectures they've given including facts from said book(s) to millions of people?
it's understandable that people feel threatened by these technologies, but to a great degree the work of a successful artist is to understand and meet the desires of an audience. LLMs and image generation tech do not do this. they simply streamline the production
of course if you've worked for years to become a graphic designer you're going to be annoyed that an AI can do your job for you, but this is simply what happens when technology moves forward. no one today mourns the loss of scribes to the printing press. the artists in control of their own destiny - i.e. making their own creative decisions - will not, can not, be affected by these models, unless they refuse to adapt to the times
- krisoft 3y ago> understand and meet the desires of an audience. LLMs and image generation tech do not do this. For now? I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes the next feature though.
- permo-w 3y agothat's already been a thing for years. long before LLMs and Stable Diffusion it's just the instagram/tiktok/youtube suggested content algorithms
- milemi 3y agoIf you found a way to have a million children who could grow up in one day your analogy would be more apt. In that case you and your children would rightly be considered a threat.
- enneff 3y agoMaking an analogy where you substitute a human being for the LLM is disingenuous to the extreme.
- permo-w 3y agowhy do you think that?
- enneff 3y agoBecause LLMs are not people. They are nothing like people; not in construction nor behaviour.
- permo-w 3y agoLLMs are built upon neural networks which are modelled upon how brains work can you explain to me specifically how they're different? can you explain to me how they're different to the degree that making an analogy between the two is "disingenuous to the extreme"?
- TillE 3y agoOne is a person, the other is a computer program. Legally quite distinct! Note that nobody is even seriously claiming we have an AGI, there's no Star Trek discussion of whether an android is a person. Everyone agrees this is just a computer program.
- permo-w 3y agoare you aware of how neural networks work? and remember that this is simply an illustrative analogy
- srslack 3y agoIt doesn't matter if it's a person, or a computer program, or not. This discussion is moot. Is there a substantial reproduction of the works in the output? If not, there's no copyright infringement here. Try reading this legal opinion: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53-5_Gillotte.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53...
- malloci 3y ago> I buy a book and give it to my child > how about they become a therapist and sell access > what if they sell access to lectures I fully agree. But in all of your examples someone is purchasing the right to access the information in question. Did Meta or OpenAI purchase the books (or lectures) with the intention of feeding them into the training for their respective LLM's?
- permo-w 3y agothis I do not know. it's not the aspect I'm exploring really however, in the analogy the books could have been read for free from a library