4 ms·

Sarah's pov raises some questions for me regarding my own "training", there is a noteworthy part of who I am built upon the consumed music, books, movies, video

Sarah's pov raises some questions for me regarding my own "training", there is a noteworthy part of who I am built upon the consumed music, books, movies, video games and tv shows that myself or people around me have pirated and shared with me. This part of me helped me in life appreciably, I could also say I profited because of it, helping me along my life in being likable, funny, relatable, with broad outlooks etc. Is my brain just by the act of existing continually infringes on copyright? Can I be sued because I made a reference to a movie I pirated or because I whistle a song I never bought?

banana_feather 3y ago
The allegation is that the model was trained on a copy of the original work that was improperly obtained. The fact that it can produce a summary is being offered as evidence of that claim. You can't be sued for making a reference or whistling a song, nor you could have been sued for being in possession of a pirated copy, only making a pirated copy. Copyright law has many warts, but it's not some Kafkaesque mind prison.
Schnitzkitz 3y ago
> Is my brain just by the act of existing continually infringes on copyright? Can I be sued because I made a reference to a movie I pirated or because I whistle a song I never bought? I think it would fall under fair use. But you can imagine what the world can become with microphones and cameras everywhere, which can already run music and speech recognition by themselves, in seconds. What a time to be alive!
twelve40 3y ago
if you are a robot that ripped off literally all the data in the world and now resells it in a repackaged form for its own profit, then yes, you can be sued. Talking about whistling a song is pretty absurd in this context.
moffkalast 3y ago
Tom Scott did it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E The simple fact is that our current handling of copyright is just completely broken on so many levels.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xdennis 3y ago
Just because we call both learning, doesn't mean that human learning and machine learning are the same. They most definitely are not the same. Human learning is very lossy. Even if they were the same, it doesn't mean that bots should have the same rights that people have.

banana_feather 3y ago

The allegation is that the model was trained on a copy of the original work that was improperly obtained. The fact that it can produce a summary is being offered as evidence of that claim. You can't be sued for making a reference or whistling a song, nor you could have been sued for being in possession of a pirated copy, only making a pirated copy. Copyright law has many warts, but it's not some Kafkaesque mind prison.

Schnitzkitz 3y ago

> Is my brain just by the act of existing continually infringes on copyright? Can I be sued because I made a reference to a movie I pirated or because I whistle a song I never bought? I think it would fall under fair use. But you can imagine what the world can become with microphones and cameras everywhere, which can already run music and speech recognition by themselves, in seconds. What a time to be alive!

twelve40 3y ago

if you are a robot that ripped off literally all the data in the world and now resells it in a repackaged form for its own profit, then yes, you can be sued. Talking about whistling a song is pretty absurd in this context.

moffkalast 3y ago

Tom Scott did it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E The simple fact is that our current handling of copyright is just completely broken on so many levels.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xdennis 3y ago

Just because we call both learning, doesn't mean that human learning and machine learning are the same. They most definitely are not the same. Human learning is very lossy. Even if they were the same, it doesn't mean that bots should have the same rights that people have.