3 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have no recent and explicit US gov't guidance on whether these model weights are copyrightable. Copyright office has said ai-gen

by sigmar 2y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have no recent and explicit US gov't guidance on whether these model weights are copyrightable. Copyright office has said ai-generated outputs are not copyrightable[1], but hasn't weighed in on weights(?) Kind of seems like that should change? Wasn't a relevant question for AlphaFold2, as the weights for it were CC BY 4.0 license. These model weights (and many other ml weights) are clearly very useful in a commercial settings, but google thinks it can scare people into not using them with the wording of their license, are they right? [1] https://libanswers.baylor.edu/faq/409539 https://libanswers.baylor.edu/faq/409539

sebzim4500 2y ago
The weights are only provided on demand, presumably only after you seen a bunch of agreements. I don't think copyright matters.
- sigmar 2y ago
  Yeah, google can control initial distribution. but in the long term, I believe Google's ability to enforce that Terms of Use (re: no commercial use) is entirely dependent on whether they have IP ownership of the weights
- Hizonner 2y ago
  That has basically zero practical effect. If Google hands out the weights to thousands of people, and even one of them leaks them to somebody who hasn't "seen a bunch of agreements", then Google's only protection against further redistribution is copyright. Which doesn't exist. Yes, they can come after the leaker. If they can identify the leaker, which they probably can't. But even crucifying the leaker won't put the genie back into the bottle.
  - sebzim4500 2y ago
    I assume that they will not hand out the weights to thousands of people. If they do, then I agree that they will eventually leak.
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    The weights might be slightly adjusted for each person they hand it out to. So Google would know instantly who leaked the weights.
    - 7734128 2y ago
      Hard to pursue someone for what could easily have been a hack or computer theft, though.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        Doesn't matter: if they can't secure their data, the contract is terminated, and they possibly get taken to court.
scotty79 2y ago
Can results of mathematical computation without any artist's control be copyrigtable?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- techjamie 2y ago
  It hasn't been weighed on, but as someone with no legal credentials, it wouldn't surprise me if the ultimate answer on models being copyrightable is "No." Ultimately, the working parts of a given model are completely unknowable to even the smartest humans once you get to doing anything past bare basics. We know the shape of the model, the number of layers, and what inputs/outputs correlate to, but not really anything else. It's the product of a machine trying things randomly until something works, then the best model produced is selected for production. Not altogether different on a high level perspective from generating an image, or piece of text using a model. You're introducing a random factor, number of steps, and the machine uses this unknowable model to produce something a person can understand. I do think the law should update and grant some protections to people who produce models, because losing all protection would mean the death of open model releases, and then we'd be even more seriously staring down the barrel of corpos controlling the entirety of the technology moreso than we are now. At least open models provide some semblance of control for end users.
  - hnfong 2y ago
    > I do think the law should update and grant some protections to people who produce models This is what every reasonable person thinks, and because legislators and lawyers generally aren't that great at or keen on designing new frameworks for IP protection, the most likely outcome would be extending the concept of copyrights to models. They did it for photography, for software programs, and they will do it for AI models.
- wrsh07 2y ago
  While not directly analogous, people often think "it's just math" or "it's just numbers" and therefore claim their use is ok. I would encourage those people to read about illegal numbers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
fasa99 2y ago
It's deeper than just weights because the topic is biological. In the old days of genomics there were massive patent wars. First, the human genome project itself. Craig Venter got massive funding to sequence the human genome with the understanding he'd patent all the genes. So there was a space race of sorts where the private sector sought to beat him - lead by Francis Collins now head of the NIH. It came out a tie (or that's what they called it), Bill Clinton brought them both on a stage and said "great job! also genes aren't patentable!" Then a whole stink arose around Myriad Genetics who patented a BRCA test. Now that's a bigtime gene far as cancer goes see: Angelina Jolie. Then in 2013 the supreme court ruled genes cannot be patented. So what is alphafold 3? Is it a ground truth of which protein interacts with what? In which case it seems not patentable. Or is it a method, or algorithm, to estimate protein interactions? That's more grey area. Idk. If google wanted to monetize it proper they'd probably keep it as an internal black project and cook up pharma collabs and such. But they've made it public(ish). Still a long way to go, or at least some more steps. If we say Protein A interacts with Protein B, we then have to ask whether they're expressed in the same cell, which itself is not enough! Most bio measurements are in big batches of millions of cells. It has to be same cell at the same time. So if our batch is a million cells w/ protein A, a million cells w/ protein B, then it looks like both are "on" in our batch of 2 million cells. But the truth is more nuanced. And then even then, other considerations such as post translational modifications and which cellular compartment these proteins reside in.

by sigmar 2y ago

sebzim4500 2y ago

The weights are only provided on demand, presumably only after you seen a bunch of agreements. I don't think copyright matters.

sigmar 2y ago
Yeah, google can control initial distribution. but in the long term, I believe Google's ability to enforce that Terms of Use (re: no commercial use) is entirely dependent on whether they have IP ownership of the weights
Hizonner 2y ago
That has basically zero practical effect. If Google hands out the weights to thousands of people, and even one of them leaks them to somebody who hasn't "seen a bunch of agreements", then Google's only protection against further redistribution is copyright. Which doesn't exist. Yes, they can come after the leaker. If they can identify the leaker, which they probably can't. But even crucifying the leaker won't put the genie back into the bottle.
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  I assume that they will not hand out the weights to thousands of people. If they do, then I agree that they will eventually leak.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  The weights might be slightly adjusted for each person they hand it out to. So Google would know instantly who leaked the weights.
  - 7734128 2y ago
    Hard to pursue someone for what could easily have been a hack or computer theft, though.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      Doesn't matter: if they can't secure their data, the contract is terminated, and they possibly get taken to court.

scotty79 2y ago

Can results of mathematical computation without any artist's control be copyrigtable?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
techjamie 2y ago
It hasn't been weighed on, but as someone with no legal credentials, it wouldn't surprise me if the ultimate answer on models being copyrightable is "No." Ultimately, the working parts of a given model are completely unknowable to even the smartest humans once you get to doing anything past bare basics. We know the shape of the model, the number of layers, and what inputs/outputs correlate to, but not really anything else. It's the product of a machine trying things randomly until something works, then the best model produced is selected for production. Not altogether different on a high level perspective from generating an image, or piece of text using a model. You're introducing a random factor, number of steps, and the machine uses this unknowable model to produce something a person can understand. I do think the law should update and grant some protections to people who produce models, because losing all protection would mean the death of open model releases, and then we'd be even more seriously staring down the barrel of corpos controlling the entirety of the technology moreso than we are now. At least open models provide some semblance of control for end users.
- hnfong 2y ago
  > I do think the law should update and grant some protections to people who produce models This is what every reasonable person thinks, and because legislators and lawyers generally aren't that great at or keen on designing new frameworks for IP protection, the most likely outcome would be extending the concept of copyrights to models. They did it for photography, for software programs, and they will do it for AI models.
wrsh07 2y ago
While not directly analogous, people often think "it's just math" or "it's just numbers" and therefore claim their use is ok. I would encourage those people to read about illegal numbers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

fasa99 2y ago

It's deeper than just weights because the topic is biological. In the old days of genomics there were massive patent wars. First, the human genome project itself. Craig Venter got massive funding to sequence the human genome with the understanding he'd patent all the genes. So there was a space race of sorts where the private sector sought to beat him - lead by Francis Collins now head of the NIH. It came out a tie (or that's what they called it), Bill Clinton brought them both on a stage and said "great job! also genes aren't patentable!" Then a whole stink arose around Myriad Genetics who patented a BRCA test. Now that's a bigtime gene far as cancer goes see: Angelina Jolie. Then in 2013 the supreme court ruled genes cannot be patented. So what is alphafold 3? Is it a ground truth of which protein interacts with what? In which case it seems not patentable. Or is it a method, or algorithm, to estimate protein interactions? That's more grey area. Idk. If google wanted to monetize it proper they'd probably keep it as an internal black project and cook up pharma collabs and such. But they've made it public(ish). Still a long way to go, or at least some more steps. If we say Protein A interacts with Protein B, we then have to ask whether they're expressed in the same cell, which itself is not enough! Most bio measurements are in big batches of millions of cells. It has to be same cell at the same time. So if our batch is a million cells w/ protein A, a million cells w/ protein B, then it looks like both are "on" in our batch of 2 million cells. But the truth is more nuanced. And then even then, other considerations such as post translational modifications and which cellular compartment these proteins reside in.