3 ms·

> So I can see the logic in treating the inputs to the AI training data sets the same way we treat humans learning something. If we don't take this approach th

> So I can see the logic in treating the inputs to the AI training data sets the same way we treat humans learning something. If we don't take this approach then there will be a series of very lame legal loop-holes with putting mechanical Turks [1] in the process. Or just end up with very "I know it when I see it" legislation. So for both practical and philosophical grounds I do support this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk

JKCalhoun 3y ago
And "clean room" AI training other AI. The end is inevitable, protecting copyright for AI training is probably a lost cause.
vidarh 3y ago
You don't even need that. Even "just" OpenAI has a valuation large enough to just buy several major publishers and data brokers to secure access to data if they need to license. And while I expect NYT imagines that their archive is really valuable for training, they're just not that special in the sense that while they may have broken more stories on average than many others, and have had influential op eds etc., the ones that matters will have been cited and referenced and written about elsewhere - the irony is that by virtue of being so well known, their historically most important content is also less unique in terms of the accessibility of the information in it. So while I'm sure OpenAI would love their archives, I'm also sure that if OpenAI and others have to license content and NYT end up being "difficult", OpenAI will just license content from (or buy) a suitably diverse portfolio of other papers instead. In other words, beyond producing outright synthetic data, if AI companies are prevented from training on data they don't have a license to, the net effect will just be a scramble to buy licenses and/or buy companies that can provide sources of content, and the price for that content will be a lot lower than some of the people pursuing these copyright claims imagine. In the end, if we go that route, all we'll have achieved as a society is creating massive moats protecting the companies already big enough to buy access to a broad enough set of content and made open models harder.
- miki123211 3y ago
  This will also enable new and unique business models for social network. You won't have to rely on ad targeting and user tracking any more, if you encourage people to make great content, you can make money by licensing that content to advertisers.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

And "clean room" AI training other AI. The end is inevitable, protecting copyright for AI training is probably a lost cause.

vidarh 3y ago

You don't even need that. Even "just" OpenAI has a valuation large enough to just buy several major publishers and data brokers to secure access to data if they need to license. And while I expect NYT imagines that their archive is really valuable for training, they're just not that special in the sense that while they may have broken more stories on average than many others, and have had influential op eds etc., the ones that matters will have been cited and referenced and written about elsewhere - the irony is that by virtue of being so well known, their historically most important content is also less unique in terms of the accessibility of the information in it. So while I'm sure OpenAI would love their archives, I'm also sure that if OpenAI and others have to license content and NYT end up being "difficult", OpenAI will just license content from (or buy) a suitably diverse portfolio of other papers instead. In other words, beyond producing outright synthetic data, if AI companies are prevented from training on data they don't have a license to, the net effect will just be a scramble to buy licenses and/or buy companies that can provide sources of content, and the price for that content will be a lot lower than some of the people pursuing these copyright claims imagine. In the end, if we go that route, all we'll have achieved as a society is creating massive moats protecting the companies already big enough to buy access to a broad enough set of content and made open models harder.

miki123211 3y ago
This will also enable new and unique business models for social network. You won't have to rely on ad targeting and user tracking any more, if you encourage people to make great content, you can make money by licensing that content to advertisers.