5 ms·

The human brain is trained on copyright material. The human brain can also be monetized. And the human brain is not open source. I don't see why artificial br

The human brain is trained on copyright material. The human brain can also be monetized. And the human brain is not open source. I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently.

JohnFen 3y ago
> I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently. Perhaps because they're tools, not people.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
sure. and if you ask me as a human brain to copy code I worked with at a previous (non open-source) company line-by-line, I can get myself and current company in trouble. This usually isn't an issue because human brains aren't usually as good at regurgitating exact copies, but it's still pretty much the foundation of copyright. So why should an artificial brain be treated differently, especially when it's been shown how you can prompt one in a way to almost regurgitate the exact copyright info (similar to how you can prompt a human brain)?
Centigonal 3y ago
Human brains aren't birthed by companies who enslave them for exclusive use by their clientele. LLMs and human minds are not comparable.
cyanydeez 3y ago
slavery is illegal.
- intrasight 3y ago
  Nobody mentioned slavery
Terr_ 3y ago
Others have mentioned the "if the AI has those rights then it's also slavery" angle, but I think there's also a much less-dramatic argument... Imagine that Acme Music hires large sweatshops of workers, who are tasked with listening to trending (copyrighted) songs and then go through grueling practice to sing and play near-perfect performances of those songs, delivered to any customer who asks for one. That business model is still copyright infringement! It remains so no matter how much you de-automate by having human-brains replace machines at the same tedious tasks. P.S.: Kind of like the inverse of patents, where "$task, but this time with a computer" is not automatically a new patent-able thing.
- pas 3y ago
  getting inspired by visual art is more ok than its audio counterpart. mostly because audio is lower-dimensional somehow (melodies, riffs, sampling, beats, things are either recognizable or not at all.. well, not entirely, but in practice there are seemingly not that many things in this grey area, even when bands cite inspiration, the influence is sometimes not noticeable), of course maybe it's just a yet to be explored niche. whereas visually copying style somehow is more possible and ok
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    As a musician, I can tell you that I can instantly hear a chord progression in any song and find loads of prior art. But we’re really talking about style. Think reggae, isn’t it immediately obvious what style of music you’re listening to?
    - pas 3y ago
      Indeed, but and to me it seems there are "fewer" styles currently in music than in visual arts. (Even though I spend a lot more time listening to music than looking at visual art, even including movies/series.) Of course this is a super bad n=1 qualitative study with very bad response coding, but maybe this is simply because I haven't spent enough time with musical style copying LLMs (if there are any), and only spent about a minute listening to that forever death metal youtube AI channel.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  I work in copyright law. Style is not subject to copyright, only expression. If there are unique lyrics and unique melodies under two bars then there is no copyright infringement. A song that sounds like other pop songs is basically the very nature of pop music. Pick a genre, for example reggae, and you’ll find a lot of perfectly legal songs that are almost indistinguishable aside from the musicians who are playing the music.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
jacobdejean 3y ago
Your brain is trained on things that you were licensed to see. Unless, of course, you downloaded pdfs in college instead of buying the textbooks.

The human brain is trained on copyright material. The human brain can also be monetized. And the human brain is not open source. I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently.

JohnFen 3y ago

> I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently. Perhaps because they're tools, not people.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

sure. and if you ask me as a human brain to copy code I worked with at a previous (non open-source) company line-by-line, I can get myself and current company in trouble. This usually isn't an issue because human brains aren't usually as good at regurgitating exact copies, but it's still pretty much the foundation of copyright. So why should an artificial brain be treated differently, especially when it's been shown how you can prompt one in a way to almost regurgitate the exact copyright info (similar to how you can prompt a human brain)?

Centigonal 3y ago

Human brains aren't birthed by companies who enslave them for exclusive use by their clientele. LLMs and human minds are not comparable.

cyanydeez 3y ago

slavery is illegal.

intrasight 3y ago
Nobody mentioned slavery

Terr_ 3y ago

Others have mentioned the "if the AI has those rights then it's also slavery" angle, but I think there's also a much less-dramatic argument... Imagine that Acme Music hires large sweatshops of workers, who are tasked with listening to trending (copyrighted) songs and then go through grueling practice to sing and play near-perfect performances of those songs, delivered to any customer who asks for one. That business model is still copyright infringement! It remains so no matter how much you de-automate by having human-brains replace machines at the same tedious tasks. P.S.: Kind of like the inverse of patents, where "$task, but this time with a computer" is not automatically a new patent-able thing.

pas 3y ago
getting inspired by visual art is more ok than its audio counterpart. mostly because audio is lower-dimensional somehow (melodies, riffs, sampling, beats, things are either recognizable or not at all.. well, not entirely, but in practice there are seemingly not that many things in this grey area, even when bands cite inspiration, the influence is sometimes not noticeable), of course maybe it's just a yet to be explored niche. whereas visually copying style somehow is more possible and ok
- williamcotton 3y ago
  As a musician, I can tell you that I can instantly hear a chord progression in any song and find loads of prior art. But we’re really talking about style. Think reggae, isn’t it immediately obvious what style of music you’re listening to?
  - pas 3y ago
    Indeed, but and to me it seems there are "fewer" styles currently in music than in visual arts. (Even though I spend a lot more time listening to music than looking at visual art, even including movies/series.) Of course this is a super bad n=1 qualitative study with very bad response coding, but maybe this is simply because I haven't spent enough time with musical style copying LLMs (if there are any), and only spent about a minute listening to that forever death metal youtube AI channel.
williamcotton 3y ago
I work in copyright law. Style is not subject to copyright, only expression. If there are unique lyrics and unique melodies under two bars then there is no copyright infringement. A song that sounds like other pop songs is basically the very nature of pop music. Pick a genre, for example reggae, and you’ll find a lot of perfectly legal songs that are almost indistinguishable aside from the musicians who are playing the music.
- Terr_ 3y ago

jacobdejean 3y ago

Your brain is trained on things that you were licensed to see. Unless, of course, you downloaded pdfs in college instead of buying the textbooks.