4 ms·

> they will soon be good enough that they will be able to replace the work of the people that produced the content the AI was trained on Let assume this is tru

by troupe 3y ago

> they will soon be good enough that they will be able to replace the work of the people that produced the content the AI was trained on Let assume this is true. It then follows that if we train LLM on all books that are out of copyright, the LLM would be able to replace the "work of the people that produced the content" that is just about to go out of copyright. Feed this body of work back into the LLM and you should end up with something just as advance as what you get by feeding in works that are under copyright. I'm not sure the assumption is true. But if it is true, using copyrighted material or only non-copyrighted material shouldn't result in a different situation.

Certhas 3y ago
So we need new legislation. Edit: To be more explicit, on my view both the parent and the op are right, and they don't contradict each other: We don't need new copyright legislation. We need new legal concepts. I think both people are right: There is an overwhelming need to address the situation of artists and writers ("content creators"). Copyright is not being used because it's the right tool to do so, but because it's the only even vaguely plausible one. It's also clear that it's not sufficient.
- troupe 3y ago
  We have legal concepts that fit. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. The particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted, but an idea itself is in the public domain. The ideas you or an LLM get from reading a book are in the public domain while the book (the expression of those ideas) is not. In what way is that not sufficient?
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    There is no legal concept for a machine to have ideas. I agree with you that the current legal framework is clear, but I disagree as to the outcome: without new legislation, the creation of an LLM on unlicensed content seems to be the creation of a derived work without permission of the owners whose work you are deriving from, so the creation of the LLM itself is copyright infringement.
    - troupe 3y ago
      But we already have a way to deal with derived work. Reading a bunch of books and then writing with the ideas you learned is perfectly fine. Copying a paragraph without citing it is not. Mimic the style of authors you want to emulate is fine. Passing off their book as your own is not. If creating an LLM is copyright infringement, then we could say that a human reading a book is copyright infringement.
      - Certhas 3y ago
        And thus copyright is not a good framework for LLMs... It's obvious that this technology was not considered when developing current legal concepts, so if the concepts produce unsatisfactory outcomes, they need to be reevaluated.
      - sensanaty 3y ago
        But a human reading !== A computer "reading". Why do people so easily and readily conflate the two? Is it just because it makes the AI hype sound more real, if you compare it 1:1 with a human brain? Machines and humans are not equal or even in the ballpark of being similar in any way other than superfluous ones, and should (and already are) held by different standards, both legal and otherwise.
  - Certhas 3y ago
    I don't understand your argument. I concur with the GP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772) that there are legitimate issues around LLMs that need addressing. I say that current legal principles seem inadequate to address these issues. Your "counterpoint" seems to merely reiterate the latter. You seem to agree that these concepts can not be used effectively to address issues around LLMs pointed out, as what the LLM extracts is not copyrightable. Do you simply disagree that there are issues worth addressing? Also, typically the entity that carries ideas can not be owned by a cooperation. So there is a completely new relationship between property and ideas at play.

by troupe 3y ago

Certhas 3y ago

So we need new legislation. Edit: To be more explicit, on my view both the parent and the op are right, and they don't contradict each other: We don't need new copyright legislation. We need new legal concepts. I think both people are right: There is an overwhelming need to address the situation of artists and writers ("content creators"). Copyright is not being used because it's the right tool to do so, but because it's the only even vaguely plausible one. It's also clear that it's not sufficient.

troupe 3y ago
We have legal concepts that fit. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. The particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted, but an idea itself is in the public domain. The ideas you or an LLM get from reading a book are in the public domain while the book (the expression of those ideas) is not. In what way is that not sufficient?
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  There is no legal concept for a machine to have ideas. I agree with you that the current legal framework is clear, but I disagree as to the outcome: without new legislation, the creation of an LLM on unlicensed content seems to be the creation of a derived work without permission of the owners whose work you are deriving from, so the creation of the LLM itself is copyright infringement.
  - troupe 3y ago
    But we already have a way to deal with derived work. Reading a bunch of books and then writing with the ideas you learned is perfectly fine. Copying a paragraph without citing it is not. Mimic the style of authors you want to emulate is fine. Passing off their book as your own is not. If creating an LLM is copyright infringement, then we could say that a human reading a book is copyright infringement.
    - Certhas 3y ago
      And thus copyright is not a good framework for LLMs... It's obvious that this technology was not considered when developing current legal concepts, so if the concepts produce unsatisfactory outcomes, they need to be reevaluated.
    - sensanaty 3y ago
      But a human reading !== A computer "reading". Why do people so easily and readily conflate the two? Is it just because it makes the AI hype sound more real, if you compare it 1:1 with a human brain? Machines and humans are not equal or even in the ballpark of being similar in any way other than superfluous ones, and should (and already are) held by different standards, both legal and otherwise.
- Certhas 3y ago
  I don't understand your argument. I concur with the GP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780772) that there are legitimate issues around LLMs that need addressing. I say that current legal principles seem inadequate to address these issues. Your "counterpoint" seems to merely reiterate the latter. You seem to agree that these concepts can not be used effectively to address issues around LLMs pointed out, as what the LLM extracts is not copyrightable. Do you simply disagree that there are issues worth addressing? Also, typically the entity that carries ideas can not be owned by a cooperation. So there is a completely new relationship between property and ideas at play.