4 ms·
> I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is curre
by visarga 3y ago
> I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative use of AI, and none of the AI safety people are talking about stopping it.
This should be an explicitly allowed practice, it is following the spirit of copyright to the letter - use the ideas, facts, methods or styles while avoiding to copy the protected expression and characters. LLMs can do paraphrasing, summarisation, QA pairs or comparisons with other texts.
We should never try to put ideas under copyright or we might find out humans also have to abide by the same restrictive rules, because anyone could be secretly using AI, so all human texts need to be checked from now on for copyright infringement with the same strictness.
The good part about this practice is that a model trained on reworded text will never spit out the original word for word, under any circumstances because it never saw it during training. Should be required pre-processing for copyrighted texts. Also removing PII. Much more useful as a model if you can be sure it won't infringe word for word.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- __loam 3y agoWe really need to talk about preserving the spirit of copyright, which is about protecting the labor conditions of people who make things. I'm not saying the current copyright system accomplishes that at all but I do think a system where humans do a shit load of work that AI companies can just steal and profit from without acknowledging the source of that work is another extreme that is a bad outcome. AI systems need human content to work, and discouraging people from making that data source is at the very least a tragedy of the commons. And no, I don't think synthetic data fixes that problem.
- greyface- 3y agoThe spirit of copyright in the United States is not about protecting labor conditions. It is about promoting innovation in arts and sciences. > The Congress shall have Power ... 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. - United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 8
- __loam 3y agoMy point is not about the precise definition of copyright, it's about how AI systems undermine the rights of creators.
- gpderetta 3y agoParaphrasing and rewording, whether done by AI or human, are considered copyright infringement by most copyright frameworks.
- Kuinox 3y agoAre you saying that all news outlet that rewords the news of other news outlet are doing copyright infringement ?
- gpderetta 3y agoThe underlying fact is of course not copyrightable. But for example merely translating a news article to another language would be a derived work.
- jncfhnb 3y agoSo if I read your article and then write a new using just the facts in your article it’s fine? Why can’t an AI do that?
- Xelynega 3y agoNo, if you copy the same layout of the information, pacing, etc. that's plagiarism. The line of plagiarism in modern society has already been drawn, and it's a lot further back than a lot of uncreative people that want to steal work en-mass seem to think it is.
- jncfhnb 3y ago“rewrite the key insights of this article but with different layout and pacing”. Your move?
- Xelynega 3y agoExactly, if you have a human take in the information and make something that is arguably "different layout and pacing" then its possible it's not plagiarism. Unfortunately no such leeway exists for algorithms, and the human elements of creation and judgement are integral to the process so they cant be codified and worked around without changing the law.