5 ms·

I don't see why it would be illegal, AI reading it should be no different from anyone else.

by arsome 3y ago

barbariangrunge 3y ago
I keep having to say this: An ai is not a person
- anonn77 3y ago
  Yep, there’s a big difference in practice. If an AI could attribute and provide royalties then it may not be so different but that’s never going to happen. A big reason Bard exists is Google trying to ensure they stay profitable and relevant. They don’t care where the knowledge really comes from.
  - arsome 3y ago
    Don't forget to provide royalties for every synapse in your head.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > If an AI could attribute and provide royalties then it may not be so different But even that requires the permission of the copyright holder. Nobody is required to accept an infringing use of their work in exchange for royalties.
JohnFen 3y ago
"Illegal" is too strong. But if you specifically disallow the use of your website contents from being used to train AI, then anyone doing so is violating the terms of service. Which doesn't really mean anything. At this point, the only defense I can think of is to not make the content publicly available. Which is what I've done.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sleepybrett 3y ago
This is the most braindead take and aibros keep pushing. Your 'AI' model is NOT A PERSON and therefore it is different.
- dekhn 3y ago
  Does that include book readers for the blind? They typically have some sort of optical character recognition and benefit a user, just like an ML training dataset benefits users. My point being: it's exceptionally hard to create laws that deny precisely what you don't want and allow precisely what you want, without quickly getting into details that bring the entire law's assumptions into question. Here being "because an ML training is not a person, it has no right to scan the web".
  - anonn77 3y ago
    The main difference here is that these AI bots are operating with an entirely different agenda. The ethics remain to be seen and the jury is out as to whether they will benefit the user they way the promise they will. Also on a whole different scale and instead of supplementing the web content it’s devaluing it to a degree.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      The "ai bots" aren't operating with an agenda- at least as far as we can tell now, training algorithms and their scrapers do not have agency. Basically you're assuming the agenda of the operator, saying "that's bad an shouldn't be allowed". But I see the web- except for things specifically labelled with standard copyright disclaimers- as effectively a large corpus of publicly available data, "in the market square for all to see".
bloppe 3y ago
It's a bit different because the AI is reading it with the intent of reproducing (certain aspects of) it for other people to later consume without visiting the original site. Fair use doctrine has long held that small pieces of copyrighted material can be reproduced, but the line is very blurry and generally has to be litigated if there's any ambiguity whatsoever. I'd bet many of the models we're currently using today will be pulled from serving the public over copyright lawsuits in the coming years. I don't think training on copyrighted stuff will be ever banned, but we need to figure out how much they can be allowed to generate based on that. Eventually new models will just pop up with more carefully curated data anyway.
- theonlybutlet 3y ago
  But you don't know what the intention of the reader human is either? It could be that too?
  - bloppe 3y ago
    Sure, but that would be illegal too. I'm saying it doesn't matter who reads your website, but everyone knows exactly why GPT and Bard are going to do with the information they're "learning" from it, so they're trying to block it from reading in the first place.
    - theonlybutlet 3y ago
      They're not doing much they're updating probabilities on a regression model. What the user of the tool thereafter do is the question.
      - bloppe 3y ago
        Many LLM's will happily recite large segments of copyrighted material word-for-word, despite the fact that it can be difficult to tell what's happening "under the hood".
        3y ago

I don't see why it would be illegal, AI reading it should be no different from anyone else.

by arsome 3y ago

I don't see why it would be illegal, AI reading it should be no different from anyone else.

barbariangrunge 3y ago

I keep having to say this: An ai is not a person

anonn77 3y ago
Yep, there’s a big difference in practice. If an AI could attribute and provide royalties then it may not be so different but that’s never going to happen. A big reason Bard exists is Google trying to ensure they stay profitable and relevant. They don’t care where the knowledge really comes from.
- arsome 3y ago
  Don't forget to provide royalties for every synapse in your head.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > If an AI could attribute and provide royalties then it may not be so different But even that requires the permission of the copyright holder. Nobody is required to accept an infringing use of their work in exchange for royalties.

JohnFen 3y ago

"Illegal" is too strong. But if you specifically disallow the use of your website contents from being used to train AI, then anyone doing so is violating the terms of service. Which doesn't really mean anything. At this point, the only defense I can think of is to not make the content publicly available. Which is what I've done.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sleepybrett 3y ago

This is the most braindead take and aibros keep pushing. Your 'AI' model is NOT A PERSON and therefore it is different.

dekhn 3y ago
Does that include book readers for the blind? They typically have some sort of optical character recognition and benefit a user, just like an ML training dataset benefits users. My point being: it's exceptionally hard to create laws that deny precisely what you don't want and allow precisely what you want, without quickly getting into details that bring the entire law's assumptions into question. Here being "because an ML training is not a person, it has no right to scan the web".
- anonn77 3y ago
  The main difference here is that these AI bots are operating with an entirely different agenda. The ethics remain to be seen and the jury is out as to whether they will benefit the user they way the promise they will. Also on a whole different scale and instead of supplementing the web content it’s devaluing it to a degree.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    The "ai bots" aren't operating with an agenda- at least as far as we can tell now, training algorithms and their scrapers do not have agency. Basically you're assuming the agenda of the operator, saying "that's bad an shouldn't be allowed". But I see the web- except for things specifically labelled with standard copyright disclaimers- as effectively a large corpus of publicly available data, "in the market square for all to see".

bloppe 3y ago

It's a bit different because the AI is reading it with the intent of reproducing (certain aspects of) it for other people to later consume without visiting the original site. Fair use doctrine has long held that small pieces of copyrighted material can be reproduced, but the line is very blurry and generally has to be litigated if there's any ambiguity whatsoever. I'd bet many of the models we're currently using today will be pulled from serving the public over copyright lawsuits in the coming years. I don't think training on copyrighted stuff will be ever banned, but we need to figure out how much they can be allowed to generate based on that. Eventually new models will just pop up with more carefully curated data anyway.

theonlybutlet 3y ago
But you don't know what the intention of the reader human is either? It could be that too?
- bloppe 3y ago
  Sure, but that would be illegal too. I'm saying it doesn't matter who reads your website, but everyone knows exactly why GPT and Bard are going to do with the information they're "learning" from it, so they're trying to block it from reading in the first place.
  - theonlybutlet 3y ago
    They're not doing much they're updating probabilities on a regression model. What the user of the tool thereafter do is the question.
    - bloppe 3y ago
      Many LLM's will happily recite large segments of copyrighted material word-for-word, despite the fact that it can be difficult to tell what's happening "under the hood".
      - 3y ago