3 ms·

AI training is no different than a human reading copyrighted material and training his biological brain. In neither case is the "brain" allowed to regurgitate s

AI training is no different than a human reading copyrighted material and training his biological brain. In neither case is the "brain" allowed to regurgitate source material in its original form. And as long as that doesn't happen there is no copyright violation.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
happytoexplain 3y ago
You're missing the critical part where that human is also a genius alien super-prodigy who can recreate or recombine any IPs in seconds and then we made him available on the internet to everybody.
- anotherhue 3y ago
  Exactly, if I can memorise books and I sell access to call me and have me recite books then that's infringement.
  - breadwinner 3y ago
    What if you're not "reciting" books, but using the knowledge gained from books to teach large lecture-halls full of college students? Is that a copyright violation, even a slight violation?
otikik 3y ago
But they do in fact produce copies of their training materials. This has been demonstrated both with image generation (a targeted query will reproduce a very similar image to the one used in training) and in source code generation (a machine produced the source code of a program that it had been trained over).
- simonw 3y ago
  The NYT lawsuit includes 100 examples of GPT-4 being able to produce copies of its training data, not using RAG: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/Lawsuit-Document-dkt-1-68-Ex-J.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/Lawsuit-Document-dk...
  - breadwinner 3y ago
    NYT is cheating here because their prompt is a portion of articles from NYT. A normal user of ChatGPT does not do that. If ChatGPT reproduces text from NYT articles under "normal use" where the prompt is not designed to get it to reproduce text then that would certainly be copyright violation.
    - monsieurbanana 3y ago
      Two comments up in this thread GPT cannot reproduce copyrighted text. Now GPT can reproduce copyrighted text, but only under some circumstances that are totally cheating so they don't count?
    - anotherhue 3y ago
      I use torrents to download Linux isos, but if I know a special thing to ask for I can get movies? It's not a normal request your honour, pay no attention.
      - sheepdestroyer 3y ago
        Intent matters in the tool's usage result ; be it a torrent client, a knife or a LLM. It really seems disingenuous to blatantly prompt the llm to regurgitate a precise work by "citing" a portion, and then says the equivalent of: "see, knives kill (as you can see now that I plunged one in this poor victim...)!". Don't do that then, knives are still fine to peal apples.
        mpweiher 3y ago
quadhome 3y ago
A human brain isn’t a creative work itself under copyright. It can’t be copied. A neural net is a creative work itself under copyright. It can be copied. Is a low-quality JPEG of a photograph sufficiently transformative to expunge its author’s copyright?
- ghodith 3y ago
  Let's hope brain uploads never get figured out, otherwise my uploaded self will be breaking copyright with every thought
- anotherhue 3y ago
  Which means the net has human rights, and the NYT is a parent, and this is all really a custody battle! This is just piles of capital fighting over capital.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

happytoexplain 3y ago

You're missing the critical part where that human is also a genius alien super-prodigy who can recreate or recombine any IPs in seconds and then we made him available on the internet to everybody.

anotherhue 3y ago
Exactly, if I can memorise books and I sell access to call me and have me recite books then that's infringement.
- breadwinner 3y ago
  What if you're not "reciting" books, but using the knowledge gained from books to teach large lecture-halls full of college students? Is that a copyright violation, even a slight violation?

otikik 3y ago

But they do in fact produce copies of their training materials. This has been demonstrated both with image generation (a targeted query will reproduce a very similar image to the one used in training) and in source code generation (a machine produced the source code of a program that it had been trained over).

simonw 3y ago
The NYT lawsuit includes 100 examples of GPT-4 being able to produce copies of its training data, not using RAG: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/Lawsuit-Document-dkt-1-68-Ex-J.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/Lawsuit-Document-dk...
- breadwinner 3y ago
  NYT is cheating here because their prompt is a portion of articles from NYT. A normal user of ChatGPT does not do that. If ChatGPT reproduces text from NYT articles under "normal use" where the prompt is not designed to get it to reproduce text then that would certainly be copyright violation.
  - monsieurbanana 3y ago
    Two comments up in this thread GPT cannot reproduce copyrighted text. Now GPT can reproduce copyrighted text, but only under some circumstances that are totally cheating so they don't count?
  - anotherhue 3y ago
    I use torrents to download Linux isos, but if I know a special thing to ask for I can get movies? It's not a normal request your honour, pay no attention.
    - sheepdestroyer 3y ago
      Intent matters in the tool's usage result ; be it a torrent client, a knife or a LLM. It really seems disingenuous to blatantly prompt the llm to regurgitate a precise work by "citing" a portion, and then says the equivalent of: "see, knives kill (as you can see now that I plunged one in this poor victim...)!". Don't do that then, knives are still fine to peal apples.
      - mpweiher 3y ago

quadhome 3y ago

A human brain isn’t a creative work itself under copyright. It can’t be copied. A neural net is a creative work itself under copyright. It can be copied. Is a low-quality JPEG of a photograph sufficiently transformative to expunge its author’s copyright?

ghodith 3y ago
Let's hope brain uploads never get figured out, otherwise my uploaded self will be breaking copyright with every thought
anotherhue 3y ago
Which means the net has human rights, and the NYT is a parent, and this is all really a custody battle! This is just piles of capital fighting over capital.