5 ms·

Anyone can, that’s orthogonal. This is about an automated tool that launders copyright at scale, generating revenue for its operator. (And if you seriously say

Anyone can, that’s orthogonal. This is about an automated tool that launders copyright at scale, generating revenue for its operator. (And if you seriously say that this tool is learning how to program, ask yourself if that tool’s operator is effectively a slave owner.)

stale2002 2y ago
> Anyone can, that’s orthogonal. Ok. So anyone "can" use a computer to do the same thing then. With the added part of "using a computer" it is now directly comparable and it is allowed. > And if you seriously say that this tool is learning how to program The tool is used by a person. The person is the one who takes the action, not the computer. So the point stands.
- anileated 2y ago
  If you “use a computer” to watch a pirated film, does that make the practice legal? > The tool is used by a person. The person is the one who takes the action, not the computer. So the point stands. If watching that pirated film helps you learn something, does that make it legal? If the film was pirated not by you but by some for-profit company that charges you for watching it, does that make it legal?
  - stale2002 2y ago
    > Can you “use a computer” to watch a pirated film? Sure. Is it legal? Nah. In many circumstances you can't mass distribute completely identical, non transformative, non fair use copies of large portions other people's copyrighted works, if thats what you meant. But there are many exceptions to that rule where you are allowed to use or distribute other people's works. And just like a human being is allowed to use other people's copyrighted works in those many exceptions, a human is also allowed to use a computer to take advantage of those legal exceptions. The only point here is that when you brought up that this uses a computer in your first post, thats not really a relevant detail. A person can use those exceptions that allow them to use other people's copyrighted works, and they can do that with or without a computer and it is legal in those exceptions either way. > If watching that pirated film helps you learn something, does that make it legal? > If the film was pirated not by you but by some for-profit company that charges you for watching it, does that make it legal? It depends on many factors. Yes there are many cases where yes it is legal to use other people's works. Edit: Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims.
    - anileated 2y ago
      > In most circumstances you can't mass distribute completely identical, non transformative, non fair use copies of large portions other people's copyrighted works That law was defined long before there was a capability to launder authorship at scale in the way being discussed. The law does not account for this novel capability. The law is intended to protect IP, which promotes innovation and creativity by creating relevant incentives. If that was the intention of the law, and it is not interpreted in that way, it ought to be revised for it to continue to serve those objectives. > Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims. This only shows that you read the headline. It does not show that you (or the judge) are correct about the core issue.
      - stale2002 2y ago
        > The law does not account for the new capability. Gotcha. Well, fortunately, you are commenting on a post right now where the judge threw out the copyright claims. So, apparently, I am correct that in this circumstance, that there is no illegal copyright infringement. > promotes innovation and creativity I'm this circumstance, it does seem to be promoting innovation and creativity because the AI stuff is allowed! Glad you agree.
        anileated 2y ago
        It’s not a discussion about how the law is being interpreted by a particular court; that much is clear. It’s about how it ought to be interpreted.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        It's more likely that relevant legislation needs to change if folks want the law to be different, rather than look to courts.
drdeca 2y ago
Saying that it “launders” only makes sense under the position you are claiming. So, it might be fine as a conclusion/claim, which I guess is how you’re using it, but it wouldn’t be good to use as part of an argument leading to your conclusion. (I didn’t phrase that well…) I generally don’t consider “learn” to apply only to entities which have the rights of a person, and of which ownership would amount to slavery. It is a common saying “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”. It is widely understood that, in contrast, one can often teach a young dog new tricks. The dog, in this case, learns the trick. We do not generally consider training an animal to do a task to be slavery. Well, some vegans might? But it is far from a typical view of the word “slavery”. So, am I saying that these language models are as rights-having and mind-having as a dog? No, much less so. Still, I have no objection to the word “learn” being used in this way.
- anileated 2y ago
  Some people say “it’s OK to ingest copyrighted material automatically at scale, since it’s for learning purposes”. They use two kinds of arguments for this. Argument A: A1. It’s a basic human right to be able to learn from things you see. You browse the Internet, you read some source code, you learn. Doesn’t matter what’s the license, you are free to do this. A2. It’s called “machine learning”, so the machine does the same. A3. Machine learning can use any content its operators can get a hold of. This is obviously wrong, because machine is being assigned human rights. We can argue about what exactly are pre-requisites for something to be granted human rights—it’s maybe not a specific physiology (some might say certain smart non-humanoid animals deserve it), but it’s pretty certainly sentience and consciousness. Meanwhile, the whole reason AI tech is big is that there is supposed to no sentient being who would understand (and therefore deserve any right to be treated well and get rewarded). If you take that away and grant AI human rights, then there is no point in this tech. So, either the machine has human-level sentience and is being forced to work (which humans famously tend to consider “slavery”), born and killed on demand, etc., or the machine is not learning in the sense under consideration because it’s an unthinking tool for its human operator. Which brings us to argument B: B1. It’s a basic human right to be able to learn from things you see. You browse the Internet, you read source code, you learn. Doesn’t matter what’s the license, you are free to do this. B2. If you use a computer or [insert technology] to learn, that’s OK. B3. An LLM is just another instance of that technology. You use LLM and you learn. This is wrong for slightly more subtle reasons, but on bright side there’s multiple of them. First, it’s not clear that someone learns while using Copilot to produce a work for them. If I asked Copilot to write me a Fibonacci number generator, have I learned how to write it? If I ask Midjourney to draw me 2055 Los Angeles skyline in the style of Picasso, did I learn how to draw? Second, and this is a crucial fallacy, making a computer famously does not require ingesting all of the copyrighted material you can subsequently access through that computer. Said computer can exist just fine without it; the LLMs, however, cannot. The inputs (knowledge and parts) required to produce the computer you’re using were largely obtained through ordinary ways (patents licensed, hardware paid for), whereas the inputs required to produce an LLM have been, some would say, effectively stolen.
golergka 2y ago
> Anyone can, that’s orthogonal. That's exactly what happens here. In this case anyone happens to be an LLM.
- anileated 2y ago
  LLM is not “anyone”, because LLM is a thing but “anyone” refers to people. If you consider LLMs people, then you should ask yourself whether they are suffering abuse from being treated the way they are by their operators.
  - golergka 2y ago
    I don't see any reason to think that somebody who can learn is automatically a sentient being with rights.
    - anileated 2y ago
      Learning is a concept that presumes an entity with volition, aspiration, consciousness.
naasking 2y ago
> And if you seriously say that this tool is learning how to program, ask yourself if that tool’s operator is effectively a slave owner. This doesn't follow. I don't see why knowledge and intelligence necessarily entail that it has a desire for autonomy, which is why slavery is really abhorrent.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  To me, the term "learning" as opposed to "training" entails autonomy.
  - anileated 2y ago
    And even still, these words are used in many, sometimes mutually exclusive, meanings (“learn” as in “machine learning” is a far cry from “learn” as in “live and learn”). I wonder how the courts could even properly consider all implications if these words don’t have precise legal definitions all the way down to what it means being a human.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  If we could train the desire for autonomy out of humans, it wouldn't make human slavery any less abhorrent, even if they volunteered for the process and/or were well compensated.
  - naasking 2y ago
    It absolutely would make it less abhorrent. Maybe you think it would still be abhorrent, but this is debatable. People literally do consent to slavery-like roles in places like the BDSM community, and some people might find it distasteful but not illegal or morally abhorrent, because these people still have the autonomy to opt-out at any point. I also doubt training out the desire for autonomy is possible. Explore-exploit is fundamental to any kind of decision making, such as food foraging. That inclination goes deeper than higher brain functions.
    - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

stale2002 2y ago

> Anyone can, that’s orthogonal. Ok. So anyone "can" use a computer to do the same thing then. With the added part of "using a computer" it is now directly comparable and it is allowed. > And if you seriously say that this tool is learning how to program The tool is used by a person. The person is the one who takes the action, not the computer. So the point stands.

anileated 2y ago
If you “use a computer” to watch a pirated film, does that make the practice legal? > The tool is used by a person. The person is the one who takes the action, not the computer. So the point stands. If watching that pirated film helps you learn something, does that make it legal? If the film was pirated not by you but by some for-profit company that charges you for watching it, does that make it legal?
- stale2002 2y ago
  > Can you “use a computer” to watch a pirated film? Sure. Is it legal? Nah. In many circumstances you can't mass distribute completely identical, non transformative, non fair use copies of large portions other people's copyrighted works, if thats what you meant. But there are many exceptions to that rule where you are allowed to use or distribute other people's works. And just like a human being is allowed to use other people's copyrighted works in those many exceptions, a human is also allowed to use a computer to take advantage of those legal exceptions. The only point here is that when you brought up that this uses a computer in your first post, thats not really a relevant detail. A person can use those exceptions that allow them to use other people's copyrighted works, and they can do that with or without a computer and it is legal in those exceptions either way. > If watching that pirated film helps you learn something, does that make it legal? > If the film was pirated not by you but by some for-profit company that charges you for watching it, does that make it legal? It depends on many factors. Yes there are many cases where yes it is legal to use other people's works. Edit: Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims.
  - anileated 2y ago
    > In most circumstances you can't mass distribute completely identical, non transformative, non fair use copies of large portions other people's copyrighted works That law was defined long before there was a capability to launder authorship at scale in the way being discussed. The law does not account for this novel capability. The law is intended to protect IP, which promotes innovation and creativity by creating relevant incentives. If that was the intention of the law, and it is not interpreted in that way, it ought to be revised for it to continue to serve those objectives. > Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims. This only shows that you read the headline. It does not show that you (or the judge) are correct about the core issue.
    - stale2002 2y ago
      > The law does not account for the new capability. Gotcha. Well, fortunately, you are commenting on a post right now where the judge threw out the copyright claims. So, apparently, I am correct that in this circumstance, that there is no illegal copyright infringement. > promotes innovation and creativity I'm this circumstance, it does seem to be promoting innovation and creativity because the AI stuff is allowed! Glad you agree.
      - anileated 2y ago
        It’s not a discussion about how the law is being interpreted by a particular court; that much is clear. It’s about how it ought to be interpreted.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        It's more likely that relevant legislation needs to change if folks want the law to be different, rather than look to courts.

drdeca 2y ago

Saying that it “launders” only makes sense under the position you are claiming. So, it might be fine as a conclusion/claim, which I guess is how you’re using it, but it wouldn’t be good to use as part of an argument leading to your conclusion. (I didn’t phrase that well…) I generally don’t consider “learn” to apply only to entities which have the rights of a person, and of which ownership would amount to slavery. It is a common saying “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”. It is widely understood that, in contrast, one can often teach a young dog new tricks. The dog, in this case, learns the trick. We do not generally consider training an animal to do a task to be slavery. Well, some vegans might? But it is far from a typical view of the word “slavery”. So, am I saying that these language models are as rights-having and mind-having as a dog? No, much less so. Still, I have no objection to the word “learn” being used in this way.

anileated 2y ago
Some people say “it’s OK to ingest copyrighted material automatically at scale, since it’s for learning purposes”. They use two kinds of arguments for this. Argument A: A1. It’s a basic human right to be able to learn from things you see. You browse the Internet, you read some source code, you learn. Doesn’t matter what’s the license, you are free to do this. A2. It’s called “machine learning”, so the machine does the same. A3. Machine learning can use any content its operators can get a hold of. This is obviously wrong, because machine is being assigned human rights. We can argue about what exactly are pre-requisites for something to be granted human rights—it’s maybe not a specific physiology (some might say certain smart non-humanoid animals deserve it), but it’s pretty certainly sentience and consciousness. Meanwhile, the whole reason AI tech is big is that there is supposed to no sentient being who would understand (and therefore deserve any right to be treated well and get rewarded). If you take that away and grant AI human rights, then there is no point in this tech. So, either the machine has human-level sentience and is being forced to work (which humans famously tend to consider “slavery”), born and killed on demand, etc., or the machine is not learning in the sense under consideration because it’s an unthinking tool for its human operator. Which brings us to argument B: B1. It’s a basic human right to be able to learn from things you see. You browse the Internet, you read source code, you learn. Doesn’t matter what’s the license, you are free to do this. B2. If you use a computer or [insert technology] to learn, that’s OK. B3. An LLM is just another instance of that technology. You use LLM and you learn. This is wrong for slightly more subtle reasons, but on bright side there’s multiple of them. First, it’s not clear that someone learns while using Copilot to produce a work for them. If I asked Copilot to write me a Fibonacci number generator, have I learned how to write it? If I ask Midjourney to draw me 2055 Los Angeles skyline in the style of Picasso, did I learn how to draw? Second, and this is a crucial fallacy, making a computer famously does not require ingesting all of the copyrighted material you can subsequently access through that computer. Said computer can exist just fine without it; the LLMs, however, cannot. The inputs (knowledge and parts) required to produce the computer you’re using were largely obtained through ordinary ways (patents licensed, hardware paid for), whereas the inputs required to produce an LLM have been, some would say, effectively stolen.

golergka 2y ago

> Anyone can, that’s orthogonal. That's exactly what happens here. In this case anyone happens to be an LLM.

anileated 2y ago
LLM is not “anyone”, because LLM is a thing but “anyone” refers to people. If you consider LLMs people, then you should ask yourself whether they are suffering abuse from being treated the way they are by their operators.
- golergka 2y ago
  I don't see any reason to think that somebody who can learn is automatically a sentient being with rights.
  - anileated 2y ago
    Learning is a concept that presumes an entity with volition, aspiration, consciousness.

naasking 2y ago

> And if you seriously say that this tool is learning how to program, ask yourself if that tool’s operator is effectively a slave owner. This doesn't follow. I don't see why knowledge and intelligence necessarily entail that it has a desire for autonomy, which is why slavery is really abhorrent.

darby_nine 2y ago
To me, the term "learning" as opposed to "training" entails autonomy.
- anileated 2y ago
  And even still, these words are used in many, sometimes mutually exclusive, meanings (“learn” as in “machine learning” is a far cry from “learn” as in “live and learn”). I wonder how the courts could even properly consider all implications if these words don’t have precise legal definitions all the way down to what it means being a human.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
If we could train the desire for autonomy out of humans, it wouldn't make human slavery any less abhorrent, even if they volunteered for the process and/or were well compensated.
- naasking 2y ago
  It absolutely would make it less abhorrent. Maybe you think it would still be abhorrent, but this is debatable. People literally do consent to slavery-like roles in places like the BDSM community, and some people might find it distasteful but not illegal or morally abhorrent, because these people still have the autonomy to opt-out at any point. I also doubt training out the desire for autonomy is possible. Explore-exploit is fundamental to any kind of decision making, such as food foraging. That inclination goes deeper than higher brain functions.
  - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]