3 ms·

You're getting a lot of pushback, but the EU seems to agree with you: https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CC-Statement-on-the-TDM-Exception-A

You're getting a lot of pushback, but the EU seems to agree with you: https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CC-Statement-on-the-TDM-Exception-Art-4-DSM-Final.pdf https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CC-St... https://www.notion.so/DSM-Directive-Implementation-Tracker-361cfae48e814440b353b32692bba879 https://www.notion.so/DSM-Directive-Implementation-Tracker-3... https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj The TDM4 copyright exception allows datasets to be created consisting of copyrighted works, as long as there is a mechanism for rightsholders to opt out. This seems like the best of both worlds: the dataset is transparent, rightsholders can assert their rights, and certain AI companies can train on copyrighted material. Of course, this doesn't grant commercial rights for the trained model, only scientific and academic research rights. (I.e. it's fine for Meta to train and release a LLaMA model trained on books, as long as they're not commercially profiting from it, and there's a mechanism for authors to opt out.) I'm talking with Jordan from https://spawning.ai https://spawning.ai to try to build some kind of opt out system that makes sense for books. One could imagine doing this for music too. This is a European law, but unlike other overreaching EU regulations, this one seems like an extremely sensible compromise. EDIT: Oh, Jordan emailed me a correction: > Looking at your hackernews comment, my understanding is the right to opt out only comes for commercial research. So making a dataset for eleuther (or whomever you compiled it for originally) probably doesn't even require opt outs. It'd be if openai used it for gpt-5 and charged for it that it would be required. Wow. So this law actually applies to commercial uses of ML, and non-commercial uses such as LLaMA wouldn't even require an opt-out. That's wonderful. This gives researchers legal cover, and requires commercial uses to be transparent in their datasets.

bsder 3y ago
> as long as there is a mechanism for rightsholders to opt out. I really don't like this--opt-out never works because the scale advantages are backwards. It places the burden in the wrong place. The aggregators should have to get opt-in. Look at YouTube. Because of "opt-out", lots of people monetize content that they have no right to and it's up to the original author to have to fight the scale of a zillion uploaders. Only the biggest entities can do that. YouTube (and everybody else) should have to assert "You, the uploader, own this content" when they ingest it. Nothing else works. I wouldn't mind an exemption for research use, though.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  One subtle benefit of the opt out is that it forces commercial ML companies to reveal what they trained on. So Copilot would need to reveal a list of repositories, in order to give the repo authors a chance to opt out. This is a fairly big deal since right now there’s no incentive for AI companies to disclose their training data, and it seems unlikely that legislation to that effect will be enacted anytime soon. Whereas this opt out mechanism is already getting widespread adoption in the EU.
- jojo100 3y ago
  >I really don't like this--opt-out never works because the scale advantages are backwards. It places the burden in the wrong place. The aggregators should have to get opt-in. >Look at YouTube. Because of "opt-out", lots of people monetize content that they have no right to and it's up to the original author to have to fight the scale of a zillion uploaders. Only the biggest entities can do that. >YouTube (and everybody else) should have to assert "You, the uploader, own this content" when they ingest it. Nothing else works. Thankfully, in a rare turn of fate, capital will be on the side of the laissez-faire instead of the stringent anti-copyright-infringers for once. You do not own the rights to material created by a generative AI.

bsder 3y ago

> as long as there is a mechanism for rightsholders to opt out. I really don't like this--opt-out never works because the scale advantages are backwards. It places the burden in the wrong place. The aggregators should have to get opt-in. Look at YouTube. Because of "opt-out", lots of people monetize content that they have no right to and it's up to the original author to have to fight the scale of a zillion uploaders. Only the biggest entities can do that. YouTube (and everybody else) should have to assert "You, the uploader, own this content" when they ingest it. Nothing else works. I wouldn't mind an exemption for research use, though.

sillysaurusx 3y ago
One subtle benefit of the opt out is that it forces commercial ML companies to reveal what they trained on. So Copilot would need to reveal a list of repositories, in order to give the repo authors a chance to opt out. This is a fairly big deal since right now there’s no incentive for AI companies to disclose their training data, and it seems unlikely that legislation to that effect will be enacted anytime soon. Whereas this opt out mechanism is already getting widespread adoption in the EU.
jojo100 3y ago
>I really don't like this--opt-out never works because the scale advantages are backwards. It places the burden in the wrong place. The aggregators should have to get opt-in. >Look at YouTube. Because of "opt-out", lots of people monetize content that they have no right to and it's up to the original author to have to fight the scale of a zillion uploaders. Only the biggest entities can do that. >YouTube (and everybody else) should have to assert "You, the uploader, own this content" when they ingest it. Nothing else works. Thankfully, in a rare turn of fate, capital will be on the side of the laissez-faire instead of the stringent anti-copyright-infringers for once. You do not own the rights to material created by a generative AI.