4 ms·

Can someone explain how adjusting weights based on viewing data is copyright infringement? I don't know if it's just not understood how these models work, or i

Can someone explain how adjusting weights based on viewing data is copyright infringement? I don't know if it's just not understood how these models work, or if it's just purposely misleading to try and cripple scary new tech. It seems like writers trying to complain it's copyright infringement to have other writers read their works for inspiration.

ipython 3y ago
This argument, like everything else, is meaningless unless we talk about scale. It's like saying, well, I don't mind if someone sits by the road with pen and paper writing down license plate numbers. But now, when the scenario is adjusted to be a network of ALPN sensors blanketing an entire metro area, am I just "purposely misleading to try and cripple scary new tech" when I object to such a system?
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  I totally get that the scale is massive. But I am failing to see what copyright has to do with it. I understand that AI is capable of copyright infringement, I too can draw a batman symbol off the top of my head, and it seems the fix for this simply output filtering AI content. But look at any AI-copyright complaint and all they focus on is training.
itishappy 3y ago
Viewing alone would be fine, but they're not doing just that, are they?
t8sr 3y ago
Adjusting weights based on viewing data also describes a JPEG file, if you squint. "I didn't copy a picture, I merely adjusted cosine transform weights after viewing it." Since you asked for someone to explain: IMO you're focusing on a mechanistic explanation of how ML happens, but if you take only a step back, the resulting models are really similar to a compressed blob of the training data. At times they regurgitate the training data almost exactly. This is what most people are seeing and (IMO, rightly) calling out as blatant infringement. Slightly different topic: I think calling it "learning" is brilliant PR, but if you survey AI experts, they'll mostly agree it's not learning in the same way a human brain learns. You and I get more legal leeway than a computer, and it'll be interesting how that works out if/when AGI becomes a thing, but we're nowhere near there yet.

ipython 3y ago

This argument, like everything else, is meaningless unless we talk about scale. It's like saying, well, I don't mind if someone sits by the road with pen and paper writing down license plate numbers. But now, when the scenario is adjusted to be a network of ALPN sensors blanketing an entire metro area, am I just "purposely misleading to try and cripple scary new tech" when I object to such a system?

Workaccount2 3y ago
I totally get that the scale is massive. But I am failing to see what copyright has to do with it. I understand that AI is capable of copyright infringement, I too can draw a batman symbol off the top of my head, and it seems the fix for this simply output filtering AI content. But look at any AI-copyright complaint and all they focus on is training.

itishappy 3y ago

Viewing alone would be fine, but they're not doing just that, are they?

t8sr 3y ago

Adjusting weights based on viewing data also describes a JPEG file, if you squint. "I didn't copy a picture, I merely adjusted cosine transform weights after viewing it." Since you asked for someone to explain: IMO you're focusing on a mechanistic explanation of how ML happens, but if you take only a step back, the resulting models are really similar to a compressed blob of the training data. At times they regurgitate the training data almost exactly. This is what most people are seeing and (IMO, rightly) calling out as blatant infringement. Slightly different topic: I think calling it "learning" is brilliant PR, but if you survey AI experts, they'll mostly agree it's not learning in the same way a human brain learns. You and I get more legal leeway than a computer, and it'll be interesting how that works out if/when AGI becomes a thing, but we're nowhere near there yet.