4 ms·

If we’re all accepting that private training data is valuable, there is no valid argument that OpenAI should have free access to copyrighted material for traini

If we’re all accepting that private training data is valuable, there is no valid argument that OpenAI should have free access to copyrighted material for training data without permission.

gojomo 3y ago
Sure there's an argument: Information wants to be free. Copyright is abusive. Broad fair use rights, especially for transformative purposes, is all-important for the future. The costs of enforcing limits are higher than the benefits of letting AIs have an equivalent 'right to read' as humans. Not everything that's 'valuable' can or should be 'owned' & locked behind fidgety statutory permissions.
- mbgerring 3y ago
  Under current copyright law, I do not have a right to own a copy of a copyrighted work that I obtained without the permission of its owner. “Information wants to be free” is a fuzzy assertion of ideology that does not have any basis in intellectual property law. “Fair use” is an argument about published works, not the right to possess the underlying copyrighted work in the first place.
- Eggpants 3y ago
  OpenAPI’s own data is closed and… wait for it…copyrighted. So it’s ok for them to steal other folks work as long as no one can steal theirs. Cool story tech bro.
  - gojomo 3y ago
    It's murky whether the outputs of OpenAI's models can be copyrighted at all. Further, even the model weights, if released or leaked, might not qualify. Even 'steal' isn't quite the right word for the allegation of the malum prohibitum 'crime' of 'intellectual property infringement'. That's especially so if the disliked use isn't a reproduction as described in current law. You might have a better case trying to extend the fuzzier concept of 'moral rights'. The distaste for the training, without it crossing the specific lines in copyright law, more closely resembles that vague form of IP. But hey, you have in fact offered a sort of emotionally-rooted argument, albeit unconvincing, rather than the grandparent's unargued mere conclusory opinion that no valid contrary arguments exist.

If we’re all accepting that private training data is valuable, there is no valid argument that OpenAI should have free access to copyrighted material for training data without permission.

gojomo 3y ago

Sure there's an argument: Information wants to be free. Copyright is abusive. Broad fair use rights, especially for transformative purposes, is all-important for the future. The costs of enforcing limits are higher than the benefits of letting AIs have an equivalent 'right to read' as humans. Not everything that's 'valuable' can or should be 'owned' & locked behind fidgety statutory permissions.

mbgerring 3y ago
Under current copyright law, I do not have a right to own a copy of a copyrighted work that I obtained without the permission of its owner. “Information wants to be free” is a fuzzy assertion of ideology that does not have any basis in intellectual property law. “Fair use” is an argument about published works, not the right to possess the underlying copyrighted work in the first place.
Eggpants 3y ago
OpenAPI’s own data is closed and… wait for it…copyrighted. So it’s ok for them to steal other folks work as long as no one can steal theirs. Cool story tech bro.
- gojomo 3y ago
  It's murky whether the outputs of OpenAI's models can be copyrighted at all. Further, even the model weights, if released or leaked, might not qualify. Even 'steal' isn't quite the right word for the allegation of the malum prohibitum 'crime' of 'intellectual property infringement'. That's especially so if the disliked use isn't a reproduction as described in current law. You might have a better case trying to extend the fuzzier concept of 'moral rights'. The distaste for the training, without it crossing the specific lines in copyright law, more closely resembles that vague form of IP. But hey, you have in fact offered a sort of emotionally-rooted argument, albeit unconvincing, rather than the grandparent's unargued mere conclusory opinion that no valid contrary arguments exist.