3 ms·

Did you, through copyright infringement, acquire your copies of Harry Potter? Did you use Harry Potter source material and a machine to transform the input and

by evdubs 3y ago

Did you, through copyright infringement, acquire your copies of Harry Potter? Did you use Harry Potter source material and a machine to transform the input and produce your parody material? I think it's different if OpenAI acquires licenses for all of the material it uses for training.

mdorazio 3y ago
I sure didn't buy a license for every book and screenplay I've ever read. And I borrow a lot of books from the library. I'm not understanding why you think ML models need to license all of their input content when humans clearly do not.
- evdubs 3y ago
  If you bought the books and screenplays, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. If you borrowed them from the library, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. You don't need a license because you aren't republishing. ML training doesn't work without having a copy of the data (books and screenplays). That data can either be copied in a non-infringing way (buy the books; acquire a license) or in an infringing way (download the books from a corpus without explicit permission like these AI companies are accused of doing). LLM services need a license just like Facebook, Instagram, etc. need a license to republish the stuff you post. The copyright holder maintains their copyright and the service that republishes their work (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) or publishes derivative works (AI) needs a license.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
candiodari 3y ago
Doesn't matter. The only thing copyright regulates is the duplication and spreading of copyrighted material. If you acquire "unlicensed" copies and learn from them, you have not violated copyright, you are not violating the author's copyright.
- evdubs 3y ago
  You seem to be arguing that downloading copyrighted material without permission is not copyright infringement. "Acquire 'unlicensed' copies" is exactly downloading without permission. You are making a copy, thus infringing on the author's copyright.

by evdubs 3y ago

mdorazio 3y ago

I sure didn't buy a license for every book and screenplay I've ever read. And I borrow a lot of books from the library. I'm not understanding why you think ML models need to license all of their input content when humans clearly do not.

evdubs 3y ago
If you bought the books and screenplays, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. If you borrowed them from the library, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. You don't need a license because you aren't republishing. ML training doesn't work without having a copy of the data (books and screenplays). That data can either be copied in a non-infringing way (buy the books; acquire a license) or in an infringing way (download the books from a corpus without explicit permission like these AI companies are accused of doing). LLM services need a license just like Facebook, Instagram, etc. need a license to republish the stuff you post. The copyright holder maintains their copyright and the service that republishes their work (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) or publishes derivative works (AI) needs a license.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

candiodari 3y ago

Doesn't matter. The only thing copyright regulates is the duplication and spreading of copyrighted material. If you acquire "unlicensed" copies and learn from them, you have not violated copyright, you are not violating the author's copyright.

evdubs 3y ago
You seem to be arguing that downloading copyrighted material without permission is not copyright infringement. "Acquire 'unlicensed' copies" is exactly downloading without permission. You are making a copy, thus infringing on the author's copyright.