3 ms·

How is it 'stolen' if it was part of a public dataset? Is the argument that OpenAI was scraping data that should have been behind a paywall?

noitpmeder 3y ago
Just because it's publicly viewable does not mean it's free for reuse. Imagine an author who uploads chapters of their book to their own website. You cant take that and claim it's yours. Similarly with all the publically viewable source codes on GitHub/Lab. Just because you can view the code doesn't mean there aren't licenses in play for how you are able to use it. Further, what happens if stolen information is posted publicly? (E.g. wholesale copies of full books on html pages? Just because it's public doesn't mean the viewer has freedom to use it as they see fit.
- yokem55 3y ago
  That 'usage' is taking statistical notes about the work (creating factual statements about the work) and imputing those notes into a database, averaged with a few billion other notes about other works. That is a usage that copyright under current law simply doesn't cover or protect for. It doesn't even need the analysis if 'fair use' because, there's no copying or public performance happing in the creation/training of the model. Where infringement arguably can happen is when that model is used in the generation of content - and if the user is prompting regenerate a protected work, then that is where the infringement happens. But not before. Maybe the various ai services can adequately guard against that illicit usage. Maybe not. And if not, its those live services that would need to be shut down. But the creation and training of a model, and even distributing that model for people to use with their own computers in private does not engage in copyright infringement.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    > creating factual statements about the work All digital content is statements about the work. Pictures are pixels with facts about colours. Books are characters describing the words. AI models are compressed versions of those. Downloading, ingesting into models, and redistributing them is copyright infringement. Even if they weren’t compressed; downloading them without permission is not permitted. Every now and then you can read about ai criminals discussing techniques for illegally acquiring books, images and other protected content even here on HN. It wouldnt be an issue if it were licensed content, or a dudette training her local ai. These are companies that want to monetise people’s work. Somehow, just like thieves, they feel they are entitled to snatching someone else’s property.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
If I create a sculpture and put it on my front lawn, I think it's fair for me to complain if you scan it and start 3d printing and selling copies, even if I intended it to be in public view. Just because I want the public to be able to enjoy my version of something, doesn't mean I want people to feel free to ingest it and monetize it for personal profit.
- suoduandao3 3y ago
  Right, but if I look at your sculpture and get ideas on how to make a better sculpture, then make an entirely different sculpture using yours as inspiration, and you get upset that I'm 'copying your style' we generally don't give you much sympathy.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Sure, I was commenting on the "public" aspect, not the "fair use" debate.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Right but you are not a 3D scanner are you?
    - suoduandao3 3y ago
      And if I'm not, then neither is an Ai?..

noitpmeder 3y ago

Just because it's publicly viewable does not mean it's free for reuse. Imagine an author who uploads chapters of their book to their own website. You cant take that and claim it's yours. Similarly with all the publically viewable source codes on GitHub/Lab. Just because you can view the code doesn't mean there aren't licenses in play for how you are able to use it. Further, what happens if stolen information is posted publicly? (E.g. wholesale copies of full books on html pages? Just because it's public doesn't mean the viewer has freedom to use it as they see fit.

yokem55 3y ago
That 'usage' is taking statistical notes about the work (creating factual statements about the work) and imputing those notes into a database, averaged with a few billion other notes about other works. That is a usage that copyright under current law simply doesn't cover or protect for. It doesn't even need the analysis if 'fair use' because, there's no copying or public performance happing in the creation/training of the model. Where infringement arguably can happen is when that model is used in the generation of content - and if the user is prompting regenerate a protected work, then that is where the infringement happens. But not before. Maybe the various ai services can adequately guard against that illicit usage. Maybe not. And if not, its those live services that would need to be shut down. But the creation and training of a model, and even distributing that model for people to use with their own computers in private does not engage in copyright infringement.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  > creating factual statements about the work All digital content is statements about the work. Pictures are pixels with facts about colours. Books are characters describing the words. AI models are compressed versions of those. Downloading, ingesting into models, and redistributing them is copyright infringement. Even if they weren’t compressed; downloading them without permission is not permitted. Every now and then you can read about ai criminals discussing techniques for illegally acquiring books, images and other protected content even here on HN. It wouldnt be an issue if it were licensed content, or a dudette training her local ai. These are companies that want to monetise people’s work. Somehow, just like thieves, they feel they are entitled to snatching someone else’s property.

BobaFloutist 3y ago

If I create a sculpture and put it on my front lawn, I think it's fair for me to complain if you scan it and start 3d printing and selling copies, even if I intended it to be in public view. Just because I want the public to be able to enjoy my version of something, doesn't mean I want people to feel free to ingest it and monetize it for personal profit.

suoduandao3 3y ago
Right, but if I look at your sculpture and get ideas on how to make a better sculpture, then make an entirely different sculpture using yours as inspiration, and you get upset that I'm 'copying your style' we generally don't give you much sympathy.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Sure, I was commenting on the "public" aspect, not the "fair use" debate.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Right but you are not a 3D scanner are you?
  - suoduandao3 3y ago
    And if I'm not, then neither is an Ai?..