5 ms·

Same is true for "training data" of most/all humans.

nickpsecurity 3y ago
No it’s not. Pre-Web, humans were mostly trained by our parents, our schools/colleges, places we go, and things they had access to (eg cable TV). Whether free or paid, they had legal access to that data. It would only be illegal if they started distributing extra copies or doing their own performances of the band. These companies do the very thing that file sharing cases already ruled was illegal. They also scrape all kinds of material whose licenses often say they can’t use it without citations, commercially, etc. The authors asked for some benefit in return for free goods they shared. After not giving them that, the AI suppliers have the nerve to both sell the results and put legal restrictions on them, including terms for sharing. So, they ignore their training suppliers’ legal rights while asserting the same kinds of legal rights for themselves for profit. How humans are trained has nothing to do with AI’s unless you were raised by theft, cons, and hypocrisy. There’s certainly people like that. It says more about the sinful nature of humanity than training AI’s, though.
- candiodari 3y ago
  Humans produce new works based on their experiences, which is a nice way of saying: "based on others' works they have seen". This is considered original work unless it's too blatantly copied, despite those humans never having a license to create derivative works. In other words it's legally treated as if no other works contributed to it (again, unless it's too blatantly copied) Note: this is law working like this. Not a license, not a contract. Authors do not have any power under copyright to prevent this, nor do they have power to demand something in return. Not even in cases where it damages then, like parodies or reviews destroying a work's appeal/reputation/sales. In practice "blatant" has to be pretty damn blatant. Almost always only exact copies are found to be violating and even then (e.g. Google summaries do not violate copyright despite copying portions of the source material) Hence human works are the same as AI works. Assuming not too blatantly copied, why shouldn't they be treated as original works?
  - nickpsecurity 3y ago
    Yes, humans produce new works based on their experiences. Their legally-permitted experiences. If they committed crimes and their works reveal it, they can be punished for those crimes. AI’s should not be treated any better than human beings in humans’ legal system. Far as infringement, I’m not sure if you’re talking about copyright law in your comment or how you would prefer legal systems to be designed. You didn’t mention any of the basic rules of copyright that apply to training data. They include the rights to distribute and show the copyrighted works. Under copyright law, people taking others property to distribute it without their permission is routinely treated as theft. Taking something from someone shared under specific conditions, but not making good on your end, is also treated as a problem. Many voters who aren’t lawyers consider those immoral acts. They also think artists should get some rewards, maybe have rights, and people should honor agreements. The datasets the AI suppliers have built and shared break many of these laws. That’s where I’m coming from. God commands us to obey the law to be blameless with a more stable society. We can’t just each break the ones we don’t like expecting no consequences. It makes sense to reform it, though. If you read my link, there should’ve been a proposal you might like that allows the things you want. Assuming a powerful copyright lobby, I drafted the proposal to protect their works (ie money/fame) while allowing anything people can legally access to be used in training AI’s. Their outputs’ copyrights would be treated however peoples’ are (same interpretations). That should cover the vast majority of use cases for model training while blocking infringements, rip offs, etc.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      I don't think anyone is accusing AI models of distributing copyrighted works verbatim, so any argument will have to focus on AI derivative works, not original ones. But if I understand you correctly, you're complaining that the data OpenAI (for example) downloaded from the internet and presented to GPT4 does not count as legally acquired? Why not? It was downloaded from the internet so I think that implies it did not violate any license on OpenAI's part. Saving it for a long time might be in the grey zone, but generally that is accepted, when it comes to humans, either as fair use, or a technical necessity (such as caching).

No it’s not. Pre-Web, humans were mostly trained by our parents, our schools/colleges, places we go, and things they had access to (eg cable TV). Whether free or paid, they had legal access to that data. It would only be illegal if they started distributing extra copies or doing their own performances of the band. These companies do the very thing that file sharing cases already ruled was illegal. They also scrape all kinds of material whose licenses often say they can’t use it without citations, commercially, etc. The authors asked for some benefit in return for free goods they shared. After not giving them that, the AI suppliers have the nerve to both sell the results and put legal restrictions on them, including terms for sharing. So, they ignore their training suppliers’ legal rights while asserting the same kinds of legal rights for themselves for profit. How humans are trained has nothing to do with AI’s unless you were raised by theft, cons, and hypocrisy. There’s certainly people like that. It says more about the sinful nature of humanity than training AI’s, though.

candiodari 3y ago
Humans produce new works based on their experiences, which is a nice way of saying: "based on others' works they have seen". This is considered original work unless it's too blatantly copied, despite those humans never having a license to create derivative works. In other words it's legally treated as if no other works contributed to it (again, unless it's too blatantly copied) Note: this is law working like this. Not a license, not a contract. Authors do not have any power under copyright to prevent this, nor do they have power to demand something in return. Not even in cases where it damages then, like parodies or reviews destroying a work's appeal/reputation/sales. In practice "blatant" has to be pretty damn blatant. Almost always only exact copies are found to be violating and even then (e.g. Google summaries do not violate copyright despite copying portions of the source material) Hence human works are the same as AI works. Assuming not too blatantly copied, why shouldn't they be treated as original works?
- nickpsecurity 3y ago
  Yes, humans produce new works based on their experiences. Their legally-permitted experiences. If they committed crimes and their works reveal it, they can be punished for those crimes. AI’s should not be treated any better than human beings in humans’ legal system. Far as infringement, I’m not sure if you’re talking about copyright law in your comment or how you would prefer legal systems to be designed. You didn’t mention any of the basic rules of copyright that apply to training data. They include the rights to distribute and show the copyrighted works. Under copyright law, people taking others property to distribute it without their permission is routinely treated as theft. Taking something from someone shared under specific conditions, but not making good on your end, is also treated as a problem. Many voters who aren’t lawyers consider those immoral acts. They also think artists should get some rewards, maybe have rights, and people should honor agreements. The datasets the AI suppliers have built and shared break many of these laws. That’s where I’m coming from. God commands us to obey the law to be blameless with a more stable society. We can’t just each break the ones we don’t like expecting no consequences. It makes sense to reform it, though. If you read my link, there should’ve been a proposal you might like that allows the things you want. Assuming a powerful copyright lobby, I drafted the proposal to protect their works (ie money/fame) while allowing anything people can legally access to be used in training AI’s. Their outputs’ copyrights would be treated however peoples’ are (same interpretations). That should cover the vast majority of use cases for model training while blocking infringements, rip offs, etc.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    I don't think anyone is accusing AI models of distributing copyrighted works verbatim, so any argument will have to focus on AI derivative works, not original ones. But if I understand you correctly, you're complaining that the data OpenAI (for example) downloaded from the internet and presented to GPT4 does not count as legally acquired? Why not? It was downloaded from the internet so I think that implies it did not violate any license on OpenAI's part. Saving it for a long time might be in the grey zone, but generally that is accepted, when it comes to humans, either as fair use, or a technical necessity (such as caching).