5 ms·
If a human reads something, it goes into their brain, and it becomes an influence on future works they produce. This doesn't mean that 'copywrite' extends into
by FrustratedMonky 3y ago
If a human reads something, it goes into their brain, and it becomes an influence on future works they produce.
This doesn't mean that 'copywrite' extends into my brain. A company can't copywrite what I'm thinking about. And what if I do try to paraphrase something from memory, from a few sources, and happen to spit out a very similar sentence from memory. Am I breaking the law?
To go further.
Since all knowledge is pretty much fed into a human from hundreds of books, movies, TV, internet, all pumped into a human from birth. Then everything in the brain is a product of something with a copywrite. So anything produced is some amalgamation of copywrites.
Why not use similar argument for AI. It is clear when asking it to do something like "write a screen play for Othello using dialog like Tarantino, but with bit of style like Baz Luhrmann". That what it produces is 'as unique as a human' would be, or just as filled with things that have copywrites.
- nullindividual 3y ago> Am I breaking the law? The intent of [US] copyright law is to promote new works of art (which can be derivative). So copyright did exactly what it is supposed to do in your analogy. Plus, you're human, which gives you special rights that software doesn't posses.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoBut. I am allowed to at least read the copywritten material, from which it goes into my brain to become mixed up with everything else, and spit out to produce something 'new' or 'newish'. Some of these lawsuits are trying to prevent the AI from even 'reading' the material. It can't even be used as an influence. Wouldn't it be better to treat the products of the AI with the same laws as humans. If the new 'product' is 'too close' to something existing, then they get sued. Just like a musician that has a song with a few notes that sound a little too close to someone's song from 30 years ago gets sued. The songwriter was allowed to listen to the music, it went into their brain and became an influence. If that influence becomes too great, then it can be sued.
- lokar 3y agoWhy would that be better? You seems to assume that because these models have some utility to their creators they should be allowed, even when they have negative utility to others who’s work they consume. Why should that be true?
- throwaway3618 3y agoSeems copyright works in part because of the effort involved in producing something that's similar to something else. You can't just copy and it takes effort to make something different enough, that gives the original a bit of a "moat". If you take away enough of that effort, the investment in new stuff becomes unviable, perhaps.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoAgree. I think the 'effort' reduction is the real difference that makes AI products different from human products. Though this seems different issue from copywrite . Like, we see that this can impact society, so we need some new laws to guard this.
- nullindividual 3y ago> I am allowed to at least read the copywritten material, from which it goes into my brain to become mixed up with everything else, and spit out to produce something 'new' or 'newish'. Yes, because you're A) human and B) that is how copyright is supposed to work. AI doesn't enjoy the rights of people. AI is a "talking book" and copying, storing, then repeating someone else's work from your talking book would (likely) run afoul of [US] copyright law.
- alickz 3y agoI don't think there's been a tool in the history of mankind with such potential for new works of art than AI tools
- staticman2 3y ago"If a human reads something, it goes into their brain" Humans aren't property. LLM models are. So the comparison is irrelevant and I'll stop you right there.
- BudaDude 3y agoWhen you think about it like that, if LLM's are based on the human brain, did we basically reinvent slavery?
- throwaway3618 3y agoNot just for the LLMs
- BudaDude 3y agoTrue, any neural network. This is a very grey area and rushing to call it "property" ignores what the technology is emulating.
- nonameiguess 3y ago> And what if I do try to paraphrase something from memory, from a few sources, and happen to spit out a very similar sentence from memory. Am I breaking the law? If you're doing this for a commercial purpose, yes. Recording artists have been successfully sued for accidentally reusing a melody they claim to not remember ever hearing, provided it really does sound sufficiently similar to the original.