5 ms·

Humans may read entire books, movies, art, music, and fit these complex ideas into a neural graph that does not resemble the original. Then humans can output i

Humans may read entire books, movies, art, music, and fit these complex ideas into a neural graph that does not resemble the original. Then humans can output information related to that medium from their neural graph in an expressive form. The word human can be replaced with the word GPT-4. So time to ban humans learning? I think not.

ang_cire 3y ago
Humans have legal rights like 1A that form the basis for many carve-outs like Fair Use. GPT-4 does not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jessenaser 3y ago
  A robot can post comments, or make a song out of an algorithm that a human designed, however the robot did not infringe copyright because what it is communicating is of its own source. If a robot was tasked to download images and re-post them, then it would infringe copyright. No matter if the robot did it or the human did it. Since this robot does not have autonomy, we refer to the human who instructed it.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    Right, which OpenAI is trying to argue should not apply to their illegal downloading of copyrighted material for training use.
    - jessenaser 3y ago
      Googlebot downloads and crawls pages and stores bits about that page to deliver search. Humans also manually download and crawl pages on the internet (in view of their web browser). In the brief moments before storage in the mind or in the database, the entire medium is available to Googlebot or humans. After its encoding it cannot be put back to the original in a way to infringe its copyright. At best, humans could recite quotes but not the entire work. Since Googlebot and humans do not distribute their verbatim copies, but destroy the original form, and later can only be probed to say similar but not identical things about the original data, there is not copyright infringement.
      - ang_cire 3y ago
        First off, you may be unaware but the subject of browser caches is well-tread in copyright law, and has been ruled not to be the same as other methods of downloading, so it's not applicable here. Googlebot allows creators to restrict what it crawls. OpenAI does not. It also allows creators to have their work removed from the "transformed data" (i.e. be de-indexed). AI models do not. Googlebot at no point attempts to create an alternative content to the original input content, which is the entire point of ML models. Y'all always stick to abstract analogies, because when it comes to actual details humans and ML models are extremely different, and those analogies don't hold up at low levels.
        jessenaser 3y ago
        Then we should put the same restrictions on OpenAI as we do as humans. So if a website has a paywall, OpenAI must pay to view the content. However, since this data is being given to an AI that is not an individual, there probably be different licensing so copyright holders can extract value from their works in the final model in some way. Maybe some payment before, and some after. Even non paywalled content should receive compensation of that work is copyrighted. OpenAI should not be able to profit off the work of others at a mass scale in this fashion.
        ang_cire 3y ago
        First, we should not give AI models the same rights as humans, because they're not humans. We should place far MORE restrictions on AI models. Second, we should force OpenAI to cut deals with each content creator whose content they want to make use of.
        jessenaser 3y ago
        1. Correct 2. Yes. Since even if GPT-4 is producing transformative content from "itself", a new medium of profit was created (training AI models) which have not been done before. (Example what I mean:) Even though a library is free, you are not expected to go into the library, and read 10,000 books within a few hours, and put the books back on the shelf, and walk out like it is fine. Humans can only listen, watch, and read only a finite amount of content in their lifetime, GPT-4 can read at a scale that eventually be all humans on earth reading at the same time. Streaming services for music only exist because you cannot scrape all the music in the catalog. You will listen to few songs to pay the artists and record label more percentage in comparison to the whole catalog you wont listen to.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
This is so obviously a misleading argument that it’s hard for me to think it’s made in good faith.
- jessenaser 3y ago
  I am serious.
jessenaser 3y ago
The carefulness is also why I have said "GPT-4" there may be other models that do infringe copyright, GPT-4, however is transformative. If AIs create music that resembles the voice of a real singer, or could recite the entire work of Harry Potter, then it is of a different design that needs different consideration.

ang_cire 3y ago

Humans have legal rights like 1A that form the basis for many carve-outs like Fair Use. GPT-4 does not.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jessenaser 3y ago
A robot can post comments, or make a song out of an algorithm that a human designed, however the robot did not infringe copyright because what it is communicating is of its own source. If a robot was tasked to download images and re-post them, then it would infringe copyright. No matter if the robot did it or the human did it. Since this robot does not have autonomy, we refer to the human who instructed it.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  Right, which OpenAI is trying to argue should not apply to their illegal downloading of copyrighted material for training use.
  - jessenaser 3y ago
    Googlebot downloads and crawls pages and stores bits about that page to deliver search. Humans also manually download and crawl pages on the internet (in view of their web browser). In the brief moments before storage in the mind or in the database, the entire medium is available to Googlebot or humans. After its encoding it cannot be put back to the original in a way to infringe its copyright. At best, humans could recite quotes but not the entire work. Since Googlebot and humans do not distribute their verbatim copies, but destroy the original form, and later can only be probed to say similar but not identical things about the original data, there is not copyright infringement.
    - ang_cire 3y ago
      First off, you may be unaware but the subject of browser caches is well-tread in copyright law, and has been ruled not to be the same as other methods of downloading, so it's not applicable here. Googlebot allows creators to restrict what it crawls. OpenAI does not. It also allows creators to have their work removed from the "transformed data" (i.e. be de-indexed). AI models do not. Googlebot at no point attempts to create an alternative content to the original input content, which is the entire point of ML models. Y'all always stick to abstract analogies, because when it comes to actual details humans and ML models are extremely different, and those analogies don't hold up at low levels.
      - jessenaser 3y ago
        Then we should put the same restrictions on OpenAI as we do as humans. So if a website has a paywall, OpenAI must pay to view the content. However, since this data is being given to an AI that is not an individual, there probably be different licensing so copyright holders can extract value from their works in the final model in some way. Maybe some payment before, and some after. Even non paywalled content should receive compensation of that work is copyrighted. OpenAI should not be able to profit off the work of others at a mass scale in this fashion.
        ang_cire 3y ago
        First, we should not give AI models the same rights as humans, because they're not humans. We should place far MORE restrictions on AI models. Second, we should force OpenAI to cut deals with each content creator whose content they want to make use of.
        jessenaser 3y ago
        1. Correct 2. Yes. Since even if GPT-4 is producing transformative content from "itself", a new medium of profit was created (training AI models) which have not been done before. (Example what I mean:) Even though a library is free, you are not expected to go into the library, and read 10,000 books within a few hours, and put the books back on the shelf, and walk out like it is fine. Humans can only listen, watch, and read only a finite amount of content in their lifetime, GPT-4 can read at a scale that eventually be all humans on earth reading at the same time. Streaming services for music only exist because you cannot scrape all the music in the catalog. You will listen to few songs to pay the artists and record label more percentage in comparison to the whole catalog you wont listen to.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

This is so obviously a misleading argument that it’s hard for me to think it’s made in good faith.

jessenaser 3y ago
I am serious.

jessenaser 3y ago

The carefulness is also why I have said "GPT-4" there may be other models that do infringe copyright, GPT-4, however is transformative. If AIs create music that resembles the voice of a real singer, or could recite the entire work of Harry Potter, then it is of a different design that needs different consideration.