3 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut 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 agoAnd 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 agoBut 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.