3 ms·
And my love for Japanese culture continues uninterrupted.
by slowhadoken 2y ago
And my love for Japanese culture continues uninterrupted.
- Kuinox 2y agoThe article doesn't say that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted.
- slowhadoken 2y agoIt would be hypocritical if it could.
- Kuinox 2y agoWhy ?
- slowhadoken 2y agoBecause “A.I.” scrapes real art. You can’t ignore copyright law and then enforce it when it benefits you.
- aeonik 2y agoA human brain also trains on copyrighted work. A human can also reproduce very realistic copies of things and can even pass things off as the "genuine" thing. We already have copyright law and counterfeit law for this. Even if AI doesn't work the same way as parts of the human brain, I don't understand what difference it makes, whether AI was involved in the production of work legally, morally, or philosophically.
- slowhadoken 2y agoFalse equivalency. Humans have consciousness, an LLM does not. An LLM is nothing like a human mind, it’s a stochastic parrot. Art, by definition, is made by a human.
- aeonik 2y agoI'm not equivocating them. I'm stating plainly: I don't see what differences between AI and human brains are relevant to the enforcement of copyright. What is fundamentally changed by an LLM with respect to these three thought frameworks?
- slowhadoken 2y agoYou are equivocating when you said “A human brain also trains on copyrighted work.” You’re stating foolishly, not plainly. Only an author, owner, or agent copyright something. LLMs are none of those. A person who uses an LLM to scrape art isn’t making art so they’re neither of the three either.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoThen the person using an LLM to produce something that infringes on cooyright is responsible. They better check for every produced output, whether it infringes, since they are not creating it by thinking themselves and coming to a solution, but are using a tool that stochastically regurgitates bits and pieces it has seen before. Not much credit is deserved.
- slowhadoken 2y agoBoth OpenAI and the user are infringing on the artist and neither are making art.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoIt is about time, that we get a solid framework for handling those and other cases. I would also argue, that models learned from publicly available data need to stay public as well.
- slowhadoken 2y agoYup, the fake conversation about LLMs being A.I. is a distraction from a more important conversation about public knowledge and information. OpenAI is not a proper education tool but it presents its presented that way. It also a platform form propaganda and censorship.
- Kuinox 2y agoYou are the one ignoring copyright exception when it suits you. Fair use is a thing. Also you seems to misunderstand something, the article never stated you couldn't patent an AI output, simply that the AI itself cannot be the author.
- slowhadoken 2y agoFair use laws, if the country has them, don’t include profit. OpenAI, and other similar LLMs, are commercial products. “A.I.”, i.e., an LLM, can not make art therefore its output can not be patented and the algorithm can not be an author. You’re playing an ignorant semantic game.
- Kuinox 2y ago> Fair use laws, if the country has them, don’t include profit. It does. Oracle vs Google, Google copied Oracle's API, is considered fair use as last judgment. Music sampling is also fair use. Very popular and lucrative music's used samples of copyrighted material.
- slowhadoken 2y agoFalse equivalency. Oracle vs Google was over an open source Sun Microsystems API. And sampled music requires permission. Paying OpenAI to steal art for you isn’t some creative commons community.
- Kuinox 2y ago> And sampled music requires permission. Almost nobody ask for permission. I'd also like to point out that you said > Fair use laws, if the country has them, don’t include profit. And now you start to add a lot of conditions depending of that. Oracle vs Google isn't a "false equivalency" it's litteraly a fair use case, where the one who copied the original work did it for a commercial product.
- 2y ago