4 ms·
I think the train has left the station and the ship has sailed. I'm not sure it's possible to put this genie back in the bottle. I had stuff stolen by OpenAI to
by blagie 3y ago
I think the train has left the station and the ship has sailed. I'm not sure it's possible to put this genie back in the bottle. I had stuff stolen by OpenAI too, and I felt bad about it (and even send them a nasty legal letter when it could output my creative work almost verbatim), but I think at this point, the legal landscape needs to somehow adjust. The Copyright Clause in the US Constitution is clear:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Blocking LLMs on the basis of copyright infringement does NOT promote progress in science and the useful arts. I don't think copyright is a useful basis to block LLMs.
They do need to be regulated, and quickly, but that regulatory regime should be something different. Not copyright. The concept of OpenAI before it became a frankenmonster for-profit was good. Private failed, and we now need public.
- elguyosupremo 3y agoEstablishing a legal route to train LLMs on copywriten content could certainly have a chilling affect on the progress of science and useful arts... Why would someone devote their life to their studies or craft when they know that an LLM will hoover it up and start plagiarizing it immediately?
- logicchains 3y agoThe vast majority of quality art and is produced by people who do it because they want to create art, not for money, and most artists earn little.
- CTmystery 3y agoI'm not sure that's actually true, even though we hear it often. The artists I know (about a dozen) are all trying to figure out how to make _more_ money from their art so that they can continue making their art
- macNchz 3y agoEven if that is the case, plenty of art is made with the hope or dream that people will find it worth paying for, and there are many people out there who do in fact fully support themselves doing creative work. Having the copyright to that work is foundational to even be able to consider that possibility at all.
- jrajav 3y agoArtists getting paid little is a function of how easy it is to capture the value that artists create, and how willing other people are to do that capturing - not how valuable their work is. Artists definitely want to get paid and do not want to live on scraps for "passion's" sake. This is the entire argument for copyright existing in the first place, even though current copyright law has flaws.
- gumballindie 3y agoI see, the narrative switched form “cat’s out of the bag” to “genie’s out of the bottle”. Regardless, no one wants to ban llms. We just want the theft to stop.
- gaganyaan 3y agoThere is no theft. Hyperbole won't get you taken seriously, use correct terminology.
- blagie 3y agoThere is no correct terminology. My life became a lot easier when I realized that language changes meaning not just across different languages, but words take on subtly or significantly different meanings based on culture and dialect. A lot of red-blue state misunderstandings are based on that, as are ones across US racial subgroups. Ditto for lawyer-engineer conversations. "Theft" has pretty different meanings depending on whom you're speaking to. Legal jargon here is quite different from business, which can be quite different from popular. That's okay!
- Zpalmtree 3y agoit's not theft
- CaptainFever 3y agoCopying is not theft. Stealing a thing leaves one less left Copying it makes one thing more; that’s what copying’s for.
- blagie 3y agoMy code was AGPL. OpenAI can go to h..l (Footnote: I like your poem. It conveys the concept much better than anywhere I'd ever seen before)
- CaptainFever 3y agoThanks, but it's not my poem! You can find it here: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/15/minute-meme-1-copying-is-not-theft/ https://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/15/minute-meme-1-copying-...
- achrono 3y ago>the ship has sailed Certainly, but debating the spirit behind copyright or even "how to regulate AI" (a vast topic, to put it mildly) is only one possible route these lawsuits could take. I suspect that ultimately the winner is going to be business first (of course in the name of innovation), and the law second, and ethics coming last -- if Google can scan 129 million books [1] and store them without even a slap on the wrist [2], OpenAI and anyone of that size can most surely continue to do what they're doing. This lawsuit and others like it are just the drama of 'due process'. [1] https://booksearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/books-of-world-stand-up-and-be-counted.html https://booksearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/books-of-world-stand... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9AD0TT/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9AD0TT/
- iudqnolq 3y agoThe court decided to focus on the tiny snippets Google displayed rather than the full text on their servers backing the search functionality. The court found significant that Google deliberately limited the snippet view so it couldn't be used as a replacement for purchasing the original book. The opinion is a relatively easy read, I highly recommend it if you're interested in the issue. It's also notable the court commented that the Google case was right on the edge of fair use. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-4829/13-4829-2015-10-16.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13...
- achrono 3y agoI referred to the case to point out that Google practically got away with what was a gigantic violation of the spirit or principle here, in that Google gets to keep a copy of these millions of works for itself without ever having paid for them, regardless of what it made available to the public. As for "what would Google do with all these book copies anyway if they can't make it public?", that has now been answered more directly than ever.
- iudqnolq 3y agoThe case was, like any case, based on the specific facts.