5 ms·

> but if you put your work out there and anything public is fair game, then it will be sampled by a computer and instantly recreated at scale. That's just how

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• guerrilla 2y ago
  > That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied. Or we could be ethical and encourage others to be ethical.
  • vasco 2y ago
    I see you're one of the ones that wouldn't download a car.
    • pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      I would share a car I had rights to, and download a car made free to me. Facebook would certainly sue me if it were their car, they should thus be held to that standard in my personal opinion.
    • schmorptron 2y ago
      We could make a distinction between individuals and companies doing it
    • guerrilla 2y ago
      Depends on the risk assesment but I'd say I'm a lot more like Robin Hood. Facebook is obviously Prince John.
  • orthecreedence 2y ago
    We can encourage profit-driven megacorps to be ethical? Sure, by abolishing them. Otherwise, you're just screaming into the void.
    • guerrilla 2y ago
      I think what I said is a prerequisite for that. There will be no structural changes without widespread cultural changes.
  • kaashif 2y ago
    Okay, but that doesn't change how the Internet works. Encouraging people to be ethical isn't actually a real way to prevent people copying photos you put up online.
• capital_guy 2y ago
  > That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied. And if someone takes a picture of your artwork, or takes a picture of your person, and posts that to the internet without your consent? Have you given up your rights then? My answer: Absolutely not.
  • samatman 2y ago
    What AI does is much more like the Old Masters approach of going to a museum and painting a copy of a painting by some master whose technique they wish to learn. This has always been both legal, and encouraged. Or borrowing a thick stack of books from the library, reading them, and using that knowledge as the basis for fiction. That's a transformative work, and those are fine as well. My take is that training AI models is a bespoke copyright situation which our laws were never designed to handle, and finding an equitable balance will take new law. But as it stands, it's both legal and encouraged for a human to access a Web site (thereby making a copy) and learn from the contents of that website. That is, fundamentally, what happens when an LLM is trained on corpus data. The difference in scale becomes a difference in kind, but as I said, our laws at present don't really account for that, because they weren't designed to. LLMs sometimes plagiarize, which is not ok, but most people, myself included, wouldn't consider the dilemma satisfactorily resolved if improvements in the technology meant that never happened. Outside of that, we're talking about a new kind of transformative work, and those are legal.
    • 1oooqooq 2y ago
      Nice scapegoating Anthropomorphized. Correct analogy is like someone taking pictures of the paintings, going home and applying a photoshop filter, erasing the original signature and adding theirs. The law already covers that very much so.
    • pvaldes 2y ago
      > This has always been both legal, and encouraged. Not always. The copy must be easily identifiable as copy. An exact reproduction can't have the same dimensions as the original for example. Drawing just a person or a detail of the picture, or redoing the picture in a different context or style, is encouraged. Selling a full scale photo of the picture is forbidden. The copyright of famous art belongs to the museum.
• wpietri 2y ago
  > That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied. You could make the same argument about paper. "That's just how photocopiers work! If you don't want your creations to be endlessly duplicated and sold, don't write them down!" Heck, you could make the same argument about leaving the house. "That's just how guns work! Don't go out in public if you don't want to take the risk of getting shot!" But it's a bad argument every time. That something is technically possible doesn't make it morally right. It's true that a big point of technology is to increase an individual's power. But I'd say that increased power doesn't diminish our responsibility for our actions. It increases it.
  • orthecreedence 2y ago
    > You could make the same argument about paper. Most paper doesn't come with Terms and Conditions that everything you write on it belongs to the paper company. I hate Facebook (with a fiery passion) but people gave them their data in exchange for the groundbreaking and unprecedented ability to make friends with another person (which has never been done before). It sucks, but don't use these "free" systems without understanding the sinister dynamics and incentives behind them. People make the same arguments about the NSA. "They aren't doing anything bad with the data their collecting about every US citizen." Well, at some point they will. Stop borrowing against future freedom for a tiny bit of convenience today.
    • wpietri 2y ago
      I think you're confusing a legal point (whether a T&C really gives Facebook any particular legal right in court) with the moral question of whether or not people should just roll over for large companies because of language we all, Facebook included, know that nobody ever reads. Even if FB's T&C made it clear they could do this (something I haven't seen proven), that at best means people would have a hard time suing as individuals. They can still get upset. They can still protest to the regulators and legislators whose job it is to keep these companies in line, and who create the legal context that gives a T&C document practical meaning.
  • autoexec 2y ago
• Buttons840 2y ago
  > That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied. This is true for average people. Is it true for the wealthy? Is it true for Disney? Does our law acknowledge this truth and ensure equal justice for all?
  • autoexec 2y ago
    It's 100% true for everyone. You can't access anything at disney.com without making a copy of that thing. Disney can't access anything at yourdomain.whatever without making a copy of that thing. Whatever crimes either of you can get away with using your copies is another matter entirely. Any rights you had under the legal system you had before AI haven't gone away, neither have the disadvantages you have against the wealthy.
    • Buttons840 2y ago
      One of the comments you replied to was complaining that their work would be copied and used in training LLMs or other lucrative algorithms, and then you responded taking about how it's common to temporarily copy data into RAM to show a web page. Those are very different, and bringing up such technical minutia is not helpful to the discussion. If someone asks "how can I share my work online without it being copied?", "actually, you can't share it without people copying it into RAM" is not the answer they're looking for. That answer it too technical, too focused on minutia, and our laws recognize that.
      • autoexec 2y ago
        The point is that "copies" was never the problem. "sampled by a computer and instantly recreated at scale" is the expected outcome of publishing something publicly on the internet. Their problem was copyright infringement and like you said, our laws recognize that problem. We have an entire legal framework for dealing with companies that publish infringing copies of copyrighted works. None of that has changed with LLMs. If a company publishes something that violates copyright law they can be sued for it, it shouldn't matter if an AI was involved in the creation of what was published or not.
• trimbo 2y ago
  > That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied Until now, this has been an acceptable tradeoff because there's some friction to theft. Directly cloning the work is easy, but that also means an artist can sue or DMCA. It also means the original artist's work can go more viral, which, despite the short-term downsides, can help their popularity long term. The important difference is that imitating an artist's style with new work used to take significant time (hours or days). With an LLM, it takes milliseconds, and that model will be able to churn out the likes of your work millions of times per day, forever. That's the difference, and why the dilemma is new. > Ultimately "AI did it" should never be allowed to be used an as an excuse With the exception of an LLM directly plagiarizing, the only way to prove it didn't is by not allowing it to train on something. LLMs are the sum of everything. We could say the same about humans, sure, we are a model trained on everything we've ever seen too. But humans aren't machines who can recreate stuff in the blink of an eye, with nearly perfect recall, at millions of qps.
  • autoexec 2y ago
    > With an LLM, it takes milliseconds, and that model will be able to churning out the likes of your work millions of times per day, forever. AI does cause a lot of problems in terms of scale. The good news is that if AI churns out millions of copies of your copyrighted works you're entitled to compensation for each and every copy. In addition to pushing out copies of copyrighted material, AI is also capable of writing up DMCA notices and legal paperwork. > With the exception of an LLM directly plagiarizing, the only way to prove it didn't is by not allowing it to train on something. LLMs copy everything and nothing at the same time. An AI's output should be held to the exact same standard as anyone else's output. If it's close enough to someone else's copyrighted work to be considered infringing then the company using that AI should be liable for copyright infringement the same way they would be if AI had never been involved. AI's ability to produce a large number of infringing works very quickly might even be what causes companies to be more careful about how they use it. Breaking the law at speeds approaching the speed of light isn't a good business model.
  • panarky 2y ago
    "That's just how the internet works" is nonsensical when AI is changing how the internet works. Just because the tradeoffs of sharing on the internet used to work before AI, doesn't mean those tradeoffs continue to be workable after AI. It's like having drones follow everyone around and publish realtime telephoto video of them because they have "no expectation of privacy" in public places. Maybe before surveillance tech existed, there was no expectation of privacy in public places, but now that surveillance tech exists, people naturally expect that high-res video of their every move won't be collected, archived and published even if they are in public.