4 ms·

Photoshop doesn’t provide you with copyrighted materials to work with when prompted or require ingesting other copyrighted works to work optimally. Language mod

Photoshop doesn’t provide you with copyrighted materials to work with when prompted or require ingesting other copyrighted works to work optimally. Language models do both. The courts are going to rule in favor of these authors if they have a basic understanding of what’s happening.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Photoshop doesn’t provide you with copyrighted materials to work with when prompted or require ingesting other copyrighted works to work optimally. Language models do both. They actually are not that different from Photoshop. Regarding providing you copyrighted materials, if you instruct it to generate something someone else already copyrighted, perhaps by using a feature meant to reproduce existing art style, you will generate an infringing work. As for "ingesting of other copyrighted works to work optimally", you don't know what goes into designing and building Photoshop - how many third-party datasets or copyrighted assets, which get embedded deep into the application in a form that the end-user cannot discover or consume. You don't know, and it doesn't matter, because Adobe using copyrighted materials in building Photoshop does not propagate copyright claims to you the user/renter of Photoshop. Same can be argued about LLMs - copyrighted inputs from training set get sufficiently blended when turned into weights that you, the end user, should be shielded from any IP claims related to the training data. (Yes, the last point enables "copyright laundering", but I'm not convinced this is a problem - not compared to regulatory environment trying to prevent it.)
- flextheruler 3y ago
  My point is simply these models should not ingest copyrighted materials without paying the authors or publishers. Litigating end-users who are using LLMs that have ingested pirated copyrighted would be so complex as to not be worth it except for large businesses. If I want to ingest/read a book I need to pay money but if an LLM does it they’re free to pirate the book? Why? And why is it that I pay OpenAI to generate data based off books it stole for free when I had to pay money for the same book. I know what I am actually paying for is the model obviously but it just feels extra wrong to be paying a company for a service it’s built using pirated content.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >If I want to ingest/read a book I need to pay money Or you just go to the local library. Or you borrow it from a friend. Or you stand in B&N and read it in the store. You're arguments are not great.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Photoshop doesn’t provide you with copyrighted materials to work with when prompted or require ingesting other copyrighted works to work optimally. Language models do both. Photoshop now has generative AI features that leverage language models as well as training on imagery, so this is literally false when discussing Photoshop as it currently exists.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> Photoshop doesn’t provide you with copyrighted materials to work with when prompted or require ingesting other copyrighted works to work optimally. Language models do both. They actually are not that different from Photoshop. Regarding providing you copyrighted materials, if you instruct it to generate something someone else already copyrighted, perhaps by using a feature meant to reproduce existing art style, you will generate an infringing work. As for "ingesting of other copyrighted works to work optimally", you don't know what goes into designing and building Photoshop - how many third-party datasets or copyrighted assets, which get embedded deep into the application in a form that the end-user cannot discover or consume. You don't know, and it doesn't matter, because Adobe using copyrighted materials in building Photoshop does not propagate copyright claims to you the user/renter of Photoshop. Same can be argued about LLMs - copyrighted inputs from training set get sufficiently blended when turned into weights that you, the end user, should be shielded from any IP claims related to the training data. (Yes, the last point enables "copyright laundering", but I'm not convinced this is a problem - not compared to regulatory environment trying to prevent it.)

flextheruler 3y ago
My point is simply these models should not ingest copyrighted materials without paying the authors or publishers. Litigating end-users who are using LLMs that have ingested pirated copyrighted would be so complex as to not be worth it except for large businesses. If I want to ingest/read a book I need to pay money but if an LLM does it they’re free to pirate the book? Why? And why is it that I pay OpenAI to generate data based off books it stole for free when I had to pay money for the same book. I know what I am actually paying for is the model obviously but it just feels extra wrong to be paying a company for a service it’s built using pirated content.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >If I want to ingest/read a book I need to pay money Or you just go to the local library. Or you borrow it from a friend. Or you stand in B&N and read it in the store. You're arguments are not great.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Photoshop doesn’t provide you with copyrighted materials to work with when prompted or require ingesting other copyrighted works to work optimally. Language models do both. Photoshop now has generative AI features that leverage language models as well as training on imagery, so this is literally false when discussing Photoshop as it currently exists.