10 ms·
Where do we draw the line between AI learning from codebases to offer code solutions, and humans learning from codebases to offer code solutions?
by seanw444 2y ago
Where do we draw the line between AI learning from codebases to offer code solutions, and humans learning from codebases to offer code solutions?
- greenthrow 2y agoThis is such an absurd canard I can't believe anyone falls for it. One is a product and the other is a human being.
- cokeandpepsi 2y ago[dead]
- muzani 2y agoNow you just have to legally draw that line. Legally, a company is a person too. Lately in Malaysia, we've been redefining a lot of laws to cover "natural persons" (aka humans) because what would happen is that companies would steal money and other unethical things, and the company would be blamed for such actions instead of the humans running them.
- chrsig 2y agoFlesh?
- bionhoward 2y agoTell that to all the closed AI companies with stronger legal protections for chatbot output than for human input
- garciansmith 2y agoOr maybe the ability to properly give attribution to your source and not just pretend you made it up or hallucinate a fake one?
- stavros 2y agoI've read a lot of code in my lifetime, and learned from it. Do you think I give attribution whenever I write a line?
- probablybetter 2y agoIf you have actually learned from the code, you learned about code structures, and yes, they are attributed/named/noted. Everything from "Gang of Four" patterns to applied mathematical algorithms like a Fast-Fourier-Transform have attribution and history. Where I find myself frustrated with the general argument you put forth is that it alleges that pattern-extraction is the extent and essence of human learning. I do not think that the current LLMs-are-AI trend has grasped neither the essence of intelligence nor learning. I recognize that one cannot paint an entire field of study with broad strokes, but there is a certain amount of in-industry Kool-Aid consumption that, while perhaps rewarded by more gullible portions of the market, is poisoning the public well of goodwill. This can only lead to a very harsh backlash, which we already observe undermining the deeply-funded attempts at foisting this stuff upon the world at large as "AI" Computers are not human being and never will be. The fact stands that CoPilot has no notion of code outside of its training data and is merely a pattern-extraction machine. You can dismiss this claim, but you cannot disprove it.
- the8472 2y agoHand over your flesh, and a new world awaits you. We demand it.
- yieldcrv 2y agoanyone that matters already has drawn that line this is just a powerless underclass realizing that their complete and lifelong segregation from our legal mechanisms is now biting them in the butt
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y agolol. “realizing”? This is not the coalface of class warfare. How dramatic.
- yieldcrv 2y agothe opinions follow class lines
- XMPPwocky 2y agoCould you be more specific? What underclass (and why don't they matter?), and what segregation?
- TheDong 2y agoWhere do we draw the line between a computer converting a png to a jpg, resulting in the image looking different, and an artist making a fair-use protected transformative derivative piece of art inspired by it? The line we draw is "did a human creatively and intentionally produce the output" or "did a computer". It doesn't matter that we've built a compression algorithm no one actually understands (which is what LLMs effectively are, a lossy compression algorithm, compressing their input into a model), the bar for copyrightable creativity was, and still is, human creativity. Which, by definition, a computer does not have, unless a human infuses it into the computer specifically (by for example using the computer to produce a specific copyrighted work).
- paulddraper 2y agoNo, it doesn't matter whether a computer converted or to a JPEG or a human. The method and actor are irrelevant. The only relevant part is the result. Is the resulting JPEG transformative?
- staunton 2y ago> The method and actor are irrelevant. That may be what you mostly care about, but it is definitely not true in deciding legal questions.
- muzani 2y agoI'm sure the law can care about such things, e.g. why we have homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter.
- staunton 2y agoThat's exactly what I said?!
- Aeolun 2y agoI'm fairly certain that's often a deciding factor in legal questions? If your originally produced content, without ever having seen the other thing, is substantially similar to something that already exists, you are much more likely to be in trouble (in the sense that someone will take issue, not in the sense that you can be convicted) than if you copied something existing, and transformed it into something unrecognizable.
- jameslk 2y agoHumans who want to fully avoid IP infringement questions use clean room design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clean_room https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clean_room Such as Wine: https://wiki.winehq.org/Clean_Room_Guidelines https://wiki.winehq.org/Clean_Room_Guidelines
- mullingitover 2y agoAs a photographer I'm hoping this goes in a direction where any photographers who look at my work owe me a percentage of their future profits, since they've trained their wetware model on my IP.
- jpeloquin 2y agoPatents sort of work that way, except that even people who didn't look at your work owe you their future profits. I think I'm hoping for a result that anyone can train any model on any content, regardless of that content's copyright status. Mostly because I want AI assistant tools to be as effective as possible, to be able to access the same information I can access. But however it turns out there will probably be some unintended consequences.
- from-nibly 2y agoJust so you know that will also mean companies like Disney will now have a new source of revenue. Hunting down randos who made pictures that look like they were made by someone who saw little mermaid once.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stubish 2y agoThis would require a legal contract before allowing anyone to view your work. Nothing stopping you doing that today with existing laws.
- icehawk 2y agoI mean, humans can absolutely run afoul of IP protections because of that already.
- elicksaur 2y agoReproduction. The training claims were always tenuous under the law. If I save a copy of your code, I probably haven’t done anything wrong. If I make a slot machine that sometimes randomly sends someone else your code, I get in trouble when it does send a copy out if I don’t have permission.
- codedokode 2y agoYou are using misleading the word "learning" (like misusing word "piracy" for copyright violation). ML model is not a human and is unable to learn anything. Also, ML model is not a subject of law. So your sentence should sound: "where do we draw the line between engineers of VC startups calculating model parameters by processing copyrighted content, and humans learning from codebases". Then the difference becomes obvious.
- stubish 2y agoYour question begs the answer. An AI cannot learn, legally speaking. It is not a legally recognized actor. The person building or operating it is who is involved here. Much like legally the photographer is involved in copyright law rather than the camera. Once framed correctly from a legal perspective, you have a person creating a tool using copyrighted material. Is this legal? For images, probably. However, selling or renting the tool or images generated using it is an open question. You can legally photograph a copyrighted image using a camera. But you cannot sell the photograph without permission from the original rights holder, because that would violate their copyright. And things are different for copyrighted text, such as a book (and computer source code?). You can only legally photocopy a portion of a book as fair use. Copying an entire book without permission is a copyright violation.