3 ms·
There's a lot of discussion about whether existing copyright laws apply to training data, but not enough discussion of what should change in copyright law to gi
by robbie-c 3y ago
There's a lot of discussion about whether existing copyright laws apply to training data, but not enough discussion of what should change in copyright law to give the best outcome to society.
I don't think treating ML systems as legally equivalent to a human brain is right, but I also don't think that copyright law is sufficient as-is. This is something entirely new.
It seems like society would benefit from have ML systems around that can be trained on copyrighted material, but not if it prevents authors from being able to make a career out of producing great work. We need to balance the outcome for owners of ML companies, authors, and society as a whole, ideally prioritising the latter.
What do you think we should do?
- pfsalter 3y agoConsidering that I'm not allowed to copy any of the physical books, films or songs that I own as it breaks copyright then copying it and putting it into a generative AI should also be illegal. Just because you change it from words into weights, it's just another form of compression. I'd rather not live in the world where AI models have better rights than people.
- Aerroon 3y ago>Considering that I'm not allowed to copy any of the physical books, films or songs that I own You should be able to and you can in some/many countries.
- srslack 3y agoCan you point to any substantial reproductions of copyrighted novels that are output by LLMs? If it’s just compression, you should be able to pull a substantial reproduction of the works out of them.
- Art9681 3y agoThe same thing we did when basket weavers were upset robotic manufacturing took over. Let supply and demand decide what society considers valuable. If we want the $2 basket that gets delivered yesterday but breaks in 1 year, so be it. If the master basketweaver thinks there is a market for selling human made baskets at $100 a pop, but they last 10 years, then prove it.
- Aerroon 3y ago>but not if it prevents authors from being able to make a career out of producing great work Why? Why should we hold back technological and social progress because it might make it more difficult for some authors to have a profitable career? Are only people that have the mechanical skill to draw and write well the only ones that should be allowed to profit from creative work? Because that's how it's been so far. You might have the best ideas for a story, picture or movie, but if you lack the mechanical skill to bring them to life then your creativity is worthless. AI generation can help those people have a chance too.