4 ms·

Because “A.I.” scrapes real art. You can’t ignore copyright law and then enforce it when it benefits you.

aeonik 2y ago
A 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 ago
  False 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      You 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 ago
        Then 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 ago
        Both OpenAI and the user are infringing on the artist and neither are making art.
        zelphirkalt 2y ago
        It 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 ago
        Yup, 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.
      - aeonik 2y ago
        I really don't think it's an equivocation. Training is a high level word, and because we engineered LLMs we know more specifics about how their training works, so when used in context with LLM, it can mean something more specific. I don't know the full mechanics of how training/learning works in the human brain, but it's I've been studying casually for 30 years. It's possible that parts of our brain work very similarly. What I'm trying to say is, regardless of underlying mechanics, I don't understand why using copyrighted works for training (anything) is a against some legal or moral framework.
        slowhadoken 2y ago
        You don’t think you are but you are. There’s a connection between your poor reasoning and your belief that “A.I.” is analogous to human thinking. You don’t understand LLMs or human cognition, therefore you have an ignorant opinion.
        aeonik 2y ago
        @slowhadoken, I do not "believe" AI is analogous to human thinking. Please read my previous messages more carefully. -> I don't know how human thinking works, and according to my research, nobody does (not yet at least). It might be exactly the same, or it might be similar, and it might not. This is all irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying, it doesn't make any difference according to my understanding of existing law. I also don't understand what moral issues there are here that are specific to LLMs, and apply only to LLMs. When I say that LLMs train, and humans train, I mean from a systems perspective, they both use the input of the data for similar purposes. I ask the question: Why is one different than the other? Why are humans allowed to analyze and learn from art, but an LLM isn't? If they are different, and not analogous, that's one possiblity... but still doesn't answer my question: why does this unspecified and unknown "difference" matter?
        slowhadoken 2y ago
        The human mind and an LLM are not the same, that’s an ignorant thing too imply. Your questions are intensely naive too. Also your logic is weak. Just because scientists don’t know exactly how the human brain “works” doesn’t mean we don’t have accurate tests for general intelligence. On the other hand we know exactly how an LLM works and it’s not in the same ballpark with human intelligence, it’s not even the same game. It’s like thinking a calculator has a soul because it can “do” math. It’s childish fiction.
  - grantcas 2y ago
    [dead]
Kuinox 2y ago
You 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 ago
  Fair 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 ago
      False 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

A 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 ago
False 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    You 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 ago
      Then 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 ago
        Both OpenAI and the user are infringing on the artist and neither are making art.
        zelphirkalt 2y ago
        It 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 ago
        Yup, 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.
    - aeonik 2y ago
      I really don't think it's an equivocation. Training is a high level word, and because we engineered LLMs we know more specifics about how their training works, so when used in context with LLM, it can mean something more specific. I don't know the full mechanics of how training/learning works in the human brain, but it's I've been studying casually for 30 years. It's possible that parts of our brain work very similarly. What I'm trying to say is, regardless of underlying mechanics, I don't understand why using copyrighted works for training (anything) is a against some legal or moral framework.
      - slowhadoken 2y ago
        You don’t think you are but you are. There’s a connection between your poor reasoning and your belief that “A.I.” is analogous to human thinking. You don’t understand LLMs or human cognition, therefore you have an ignorant opinion.
        aeonik 2y ago
        @slowhadoken, I do not "believe" AI is analogous to human thinking. Please read my previous messages more carefully. -> I don't know how human thinking works, and according to my research, nobody does (not yet at least). It might be exactly the same, or it might be similar, and it might not. This is all irrelevant to what I am saying. I am saying, it doesn't make any difference according to my understanding of existing law. I also don't understand what moral issues there are here that are specific to LLMs, and apply only to LLMs. When I say that LLMs train, and humans train, I mean from a systems perspective, they both use the input of the data for similar purposes. I ask the question: Why is one different than the other? Why are humans allowed to analyze and learn from art, but an LLM isn't? If they are different, and not analogous, that's one possiblity... but still doesn't answer my question: why does this unspecified and unknown "difference" matter?
        slowhadoken 2y ago
        The human mind and an LLM are not the same, that’s an ignorant thing too imply. Your questions are intensely naive too. Also your logic is weak. Just because scientists don’t know exactly how the human brain “works” doesn’t mean we don’t have accurate tests for general intelligence. On the other hand we know exactly how an LLM works and it’s not in the same ballpark with human intelligence, it’s not even the same game. It’s like thinking a calculator has a soul because it can “do” math. It’s childish fiction.
- grantcas 2y ago
  [dead]

Kuinox 2y ago

You 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 ago
Fair 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 ago
    False 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