4 ms·

I can memorize and recite a poem, but in the context of a scientific textbook, neither I nor an AI will remember the actual words used, just key facts like E =

I can memorize and recite a poem, but in the context of a scientific textbook, neither I nor an AI will remember the actual words used, just key facts like E = mc^2. If you limit your critique to the AI's ability to recite a poem or lyrics verbatim, then you have a point. However, I used the example of a scientific textbook for that exact reason. To the extent that the AI only paraphrases or cites facts from, it's not a copy. The derivative work issue is more interesting. The AI can generate a derivative work, but won't do so without a prompt asking for one. If you ask for an Oz-like bedtime story, you should get an Anxious Lynx and not a Cowardly Lion. If you ask for a story with Oz characters, the result will be a derivative work, but it will include your prompt. The work was not in the AI, though the ability to make it was. In this sense, the AI is more like an instrument that can be used to violate copyright law, like an employee who has read Oz would be. It's hard to find a close inanimate analogue, but it's probably on the same shelf as search engines and typewriters.

dahart 2y ago
> neither I nor an AI will remember the actual words used […] To the extent that the AI only paraphrases Many AIs have in fact reproduced copyrighted work in large portions, it’s one of the reasons there are a bunch of lawsuits. > AI can generate a derivative work, but won’t do so without a prompt asking for one This is an odd and vague claim. Which AI are you talking about? And why do you claim there’s any generative AI in existence that won’t remix from it’s training examples? Their design from the ground up is to create derivative works. > AI is more like an instrument that can be used to violate copyright law If the training data wasn’t legally acquired, using it to train in the first place may violate the law. People are trying to change copyright’s interpretation, but pending the outcome of that it’s pretty clear that today’s AI may have violated copyright law before generating any output.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  > This is an odd and vague claim. Which AI are you talking about? Let's exclude maliciously crafted prompts. Given an "innocent" prompt that is not meant to elicit a copyright violation, what is the probability than an LLM will generate something that will both reproduce a copyrighted work and fail the fair use tests? It's obviously non-zero, but it's exceedingly small. I'd say it's around the same probability as Google Street View accidentally reproducing a copyrighted map that was displayed in a storefront window. A claim that Google has to pre-compensate all map publishers because of this possibility is just an attack on Street View per se. > And why do you claim there’s any generate AI in existence that won’t remix from it’s training examples? Their design from the ground up is to create derivative works. Just because something sounds like a derivative work doesn't mean it will infringe copyright or fail the fair use tests (see sibling threads.)
  - dahart 2y ago
    I reject the analogy to Street View, due to the fact that a sign in a window isn’t Street View’s primary use, it’s an accident (plus the store owner is responsible for ensuring permitted use of publicly visible signs and is culpable for copyright violations, and that photography of anything in public view is permitted by law - see the famous “photographer’s rights”), whereas with AI, statistically reproducing the training examples is the primary intent of it’s design. Reproducing derivative remix works is its function and nature through and through. Whether the output is actually recognizable as one of the individual inputs is a different question from whether the output is a derivative work. > Just because something sounds like a derivative work doesn’t mean it will infringe copyright or fail the fair use tests That’s true! Remixes where the source comes from multiple songs have a history of escaping copyright claims more often than derivative works of a single song. But that doesn’t change the fact that using copyrighted data without permission and without Fair Use exemption to train AI is currently illegal. And it doesn’t change the fact that when AI reproduces substantial portions of any given work, regardless of what the probability was, it is illegal. Claims that the probability of it are “exceedingly small” don’t stand up to the (now many!) actual cases filed in court demonstrating AI reproducing copyrighted works, and not because the chances were small, but because it simply breaks the law.

dahart 2y ago

> neither I nor an AI will remember the actual words used […] To the extent that the AI only paraphrases Many AIs have in fact reproduced copyrighted work in large portions, it’s one of the reasons there are a bunch of lawsuits. > AI can generate a derivative work, but won’t do so without a prompt asking for one This is an odd and vague claim. Which AI are you talking about? And why do you claim there’s any generative AI in existence that won’t remix from it’s training examples? Their design from the ground up is to create derivative works. > AI is more like an instrument that can be used to violate copyright law If the training data wasn’t legally acquired, using it to train in the first place may violate the law. People are trying to change copyright’s interpretation, but pending the outcome of that it’s pretty clear that today’s AI may have violated copyright law before generating any output.

worstspotgain 2y ago
> This is an odd and vague claim. Which AI are you talking about? Let's exclude maliciously crafted prompts. Given an "innocent" prompt that is not meant to elicit a copyright violation, what is the probability than an LLM will generate something that will both reproduce a copyrighted work and fail the fair use tests? It's obviously non-zero, but it's exceedingly small. I'd say it's around the same probability as Google Street View accidentally reproducing a copyrighted map that was displayed in a storefront window. A claim that Google has to pre-compensate all map publishers because of this possibility is just an attack on Street View per se. > And why do you claim there’s any generate AI in existence that won’t remix from it’s training examples? Their design from the ground up is to create derivative works. Just because something sounds like a derivative work doesn't mean it will infringe copyright or fail the fair use tests (see sibling threads.)
- dahart 2y ago
  I reject the analogy to Street View, due to the fact that a sign in a window isn’t Street View’s primary use, it’s an accident (plus the store owner is responsible for ensuring permitted use of publicly visible signs and is culpable for copyright violations, and that photography of anything in public view is permitted by law - see the famous “photographer’s rights”), whereas with AI, statistically reproducing the training examples is the primary intent of it’s design. Reproducing derivative remix works is its function and nature through and through. Whether the output is actually recognizable as one of the individual inputs is a different question from whether the output is a derivative work. > Just because something sounds like a derivative work doesn’t mean it will infringe copyright or fail the fair use tests That’s true! Remixes where the source comes from multiple songs have a history of escaping copyright claims more often than derivative works of a single song. But that doesn’t change the fact that using copyrighted data without permission and without Fair Use exemption to train AI is currently illegal. And it doesn’t change the fact that when AI reproduces substantial portions of any given work, regardless of what the probability was, it is illegal. Claims that the probability of it are “exceedingly small” don’t stand up to the (now many!) actual cases filed in court demonstrating AI reproducing copyrighted works, and not because the chances were small, but because it simply breaks the law.