4 ms·

So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that wa

So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.

verdverm 2y ago
It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing > "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens." > OpenAI went on to insist in the document, submitted before the House of Lords' communications and digital committee, that it complies with copyright laws and that the company believes "legally copyright law does not forbid training."
- techostritch 2y ago
  > it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," Why not just license them like everyone else? > but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens. Needs is doing a lot of work here.
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    Because they’re not reproducing it.
- argimenes 2y ago
  "Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens." They need a new market. This is precisely the kind of AI system I'd love to use.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Yes and no. They are arguing that the current copyright laws do not forbid training. And they are arguing that they need to train on copyrighted data in order to be able to make an effective tool (and make money). That second part of the argument is there because, so far as I know, nobody has ruled (in any country) on the legality of using copyrighted material as training for LLMs that will then produce commercially-available output. So the first part is a claim, but it's not a ruled-upon claim. It's not a claim that OpenAI can count on a court agreeing with. So they add the second argument, which amounts to "please interpret copyright law that way, and if the courts don't, please change copyright law that way, or else we can't sell what we make (and therefore can't make any money)". I take no position on the first claim. All I'm saying is that the appropriate response to the second claim is, "So what? The world doesn't owe you a living."
- moritzwarhier 2y ago
  What exactly is misleading or "clickbait" in the title? I know that copyright covers blog posts and generally every immaterial creation published by humans that is reproducible and above a fuzzily defined threshold of "original creativity". The other day, I was downvoted here for criticizing the often-cited "freeware" claim put out by MS. The argument was: copyright already covers all this, I must lack knowledge about copyright law. Now, the argument seems to have shifted to: copyright law doesn't apply the way it used to?
  - verdverm 2y ago
    Copyright applies to the reproduction, not the consumption. We are free to read or otherwise ingest copyrighted material without legal concerns. We are free to learn from and create content based on those learnings. Is there any precedence from banning the use of copyright material because someone (thing) might reproduce it later? Do the current copyright laws not already protect the authors and give them tools for takedowns and remuneration?
    - moritzwarhier 2y ago
      Isn't this about generating output after all? I'm not sure if I get your distinction about "consumption". > Do the current copyright laws not already protect the authors and give them tools for takedowns and remuneration? That was also my point in the prior HN comment thread on the MS news submission that I mentioned. Good luck starting "fair use" copyright lawsuits against a myriad of auto-generated derivatives. This was already hard for naïve creators with humans and (mostly) human-run corporations on the other end.
      - verdverm 2y ago
        If the goal is to prevent companies from training on copyright material, then yes, it is about consuming the material, not generating it. The generation part comes from anecdotal incidents where some copyright material has been generated. - This is not the normal - This can be changed over time, there are also moderation techniques that can be used. - We already have remedies for those publishing or selling copyrighted material already So I personally see a difference between training time and inference time. Using the potential for copyrighted material to be generated, to prevent its usage a training time is... luddite territory... imho
marcuskane2 2y ago
This is such an insane take. At this point, I think as a society we need to just say copyright as a concept and law has completely failed and scrap the whole thing. The 0.01% of powerful copyright cartel publishers get rich while harming 99.99% of people, because we've seen further erosion of fair use rights, absurdly lengthy expansions of copyright to prop up Disney's profits and expansive interpretation of how much control copyright olders have and zero punishment for abuse of DMCA and other things. Students should be able to learn from books, music, film. So should AI training models. If there is any ambiguity about this, we should immediately write laws making it clear that training and education of all forms is explicitly allowed under fair use. Ideally, we also send anyone trying to prevent this to the guillotines.
- olyjohn 2y ago
  Fine then, let's get rid of software copyrights too. We can copy the AI software, models, datasets all we want. They don't get copyright protection for their software while declaring that everybody else doesn't get copyright protection for their work.
  - literallycancer 2y ago
    Pointless distinction, you'll never see their code or weights if you just get a response from the API, so the license doesn't matter.
- mpalmer 2y ago
  I have whiplash from your first and last sentences. > Students should be able to learn from books, music, film. So should AI training models. An AI model is a thing. It is owned and fully controlled by some agent. A student is a sentient, thinking being. Both can be trained, only one can be educated. Treating the two as comparable is misleading and in my view, wrong.
  - marcuskane2 2y ago
    We're in strange new times, but the equivalence of human cognition and synthetic will likely become mainstream and mundane in the coming years. Sci-fi has long had various "cyborg" type things as a plot element, but if you walk down the street in NYC today you'll pass thousands of people with pacemakers, artificial hips, insulin pumps, colostomy bags, and prosthetics. People who've had laser surgery on their eyes to see better or transplanted organs. Plus people's usage of smart watches that measure heart rate, steps, sleep quality or continuous blood glucose monitors. We don't marvel at the cyborgs among us, we just accept it as modern medicine. Similarly, while we've gotten used to internet search and GPS turn-by-turn navigation. Gen Z and younger will probably just accept the integration of genAI into their everyday life as seamlessly and casually as we accepted our cyborgification. You can say that an AI model can only "be trained, not educated" in the same way you can argue that a submarine doesn't swim. But does that really matter to any of the people using it?

So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.

verdverm 2y ago

It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing > "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens." > OpenAI went on to insist in the document, submitted before the House of Lords' communications and digital committee, that it complies with copyright laws and that the company believes "legally copyright law does not forbid training."

techostritch 2y ago
> it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," Why not just license them like everyone else? > but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens. Needs is doing a lot of work here.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  Because they’re not reproducing it.
argimenes 2y ago
"Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens." They need a new market. This is precisely the kind of AI system I'd love to use.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Yes and no. They are arguing that the current copyright laws do not forbid training. And they are arguing that they need to train on copyrighted data in order to be able to make an effective tool (and make money). That second part of the argument is there because, so far as I know, nobody has ruled (in any country) on the legality of using copyrighted material as training for LLMs that will then produce commercially-available output. So the first part is a claim, but it's not a ruled-upon claim. It's not a claim that OpenAI can count on a court agreeing with. So they add the second argument, which amounts to "please interpret copyright law that way, and if the courts don't, please change copyright law that way, or else we can't sell what we make (and therefore can't make any money)". I take no position on the first claim. All I'm saying is that the appropriate response to the second claim is, "So what? The world doesn't owe you a living."
moritzwarhier 2y ago
What exactly is misleading or "clickbait" in the title? I know that copyright covers blog posts and generally every immaterial creation published by humans that is reproducible and above a fuzzily defined threshold of "original creativity". The other day, I was downvoted here for criticizing the often-cited "freeware" claim put out by MS. The argument was: copyright already covers all this, I must lack knowledge about copyright law. Now, the argument seems to have shifted to: copyright law doesn't apply the way it used to?
- verdverm 2y ago
  Copyright applies to the reproduction, not the consumption. We are free to read or otherwise ingest copyrighted material without legal concerns. We are free to learn from and create content based on those learnings. Is there any precedence from banning the use of copyright material because someone (thing) might reproduce it later? Do the current copyright laws not already protect the authors and give them tools for takedowns and remuneration?
  - moritzwarhier 2y ago
    Isn't this about generating output after all? I'm not sure if I get your distinction about "consumption". > Do the current copyright laws not already protect the authors and give them tools for takedowns and remuneration? That was also my point in the prior HN comment thread on the MS news submission that I mentioned. Good luck starting "fair use" copyright lawsuits against a myriad of auto-generated derivatives. This was already hard for naïve creators with humans and (mostly) human-run corporations on the other end.
    - verdverm 2y ago
      If the goal is to prevent companies from training on copyright material, then yes, it is about consuming the material, not generating it. The generation part comes from anecdotal incidents where some copyright material has been generated. - This is not the normal - This can be changed over time, there are also moderation techniques that can be used. - We already have remedies for those publishing or selling copyrighted material already So I personally see a difference between training time and inference time. Using the potential for copyrighted material to be generated, to prevent its usage a training time is... luddite territory... imho

marcuskane2 2y ago

This is such an insane take. At this point, I think as a society we need to just say copyright as a concept and law has completely failed and scrap the whole thing. The 0.01% of powerful copyright cartel publishers get rich while harming 99.99% of people, because we've seen further erosion of fair use rights, absurdly lengthy expansions of copyright to prop up Disney's profits and expansive interpretation of how much control copyright olders have and zero punishment for abuse of DMCA and other things. Students should be able to learn from books, music, film. So should AI training models. If there is any ambiguity about this, we should immediately write laws making it clear that training and education of all forms is explicitly allowed under fair use. Ideally, we also send anyone trying to prevent this to the guillotines.

olyjohn 2y ago
Fine then, let's get rid of software copyrights too. We can copy the AI software, models, datasets all we want. They don't get copyright protection for their software while declaring that everybody else doesn't get copyright protection for their work.
- literallycancer 2y ago
  Pointless distinction, you'll never see their code or weights if you just get a response from the API, so the license doesn't matter.
mpalmer 2y ago
I have whiplash from your first and last sentences. > Students should be able to learn from books, music, film. So should AI training models. An AI model is a thing. It is owned and fully controlled by some agent. A student is a sentient, thinking being. Both can be trained, only one can be educated. Treating the two as comparable is misleading and in my view, wrong.
- marcuskane2 2y ago
  We're in strange new times, but the equivalence of human cognition and synthetic will likely become mainstream and mundane in the coming years. Sci-fi has long had various "cyborg" type things as a plot element, but if you walk down the street in NYC today you'll pass thousands of people with pacemakers, artificial hips, insulin pumps, colostomy bags, and prosthetics. People who've had laser surgery on their eyes to see better or transplanted organs. Plus people's usage of smart watches that measure heart rate, steps, sleep quality or continuous blood glucose monitors. We don't marvel at the cyborgs among us, we just accept it as modern medicine. Similarly, while we've gotten used to internet search and GPS turn-by-turn navigation. Gen Z and younger will probably just accept the integration of genAI into their everyday life as seamlessly and casually as we accepted our cyborgification. You can say that an AI model can only "be trained, not educated" in the same way you can argue that a submarine doesn't swim. But does that really matter to any of the people using it?