5 ms·

I agree, just want to make sure "they can't stop doing illegal things or they wouldn't be a success" is said out loud instead of left to subtext.

CuriouslyC 2y ago
[flagged]
- Xelynega 2y ago
  If we really want to be technical, in common law systems anything is legal as long as the highest court to challenge it decides it's legal. I guess I should have used the phrase "common sense stealing in any other context" to be more precise?
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > I guess I should have used the phrase "common sense stealing in any other context" to be more precise? Clearly not common sense stealing. The Intercept was not deprived of their content. If OpenAI would have sneaked into their office and server farm and took all the hard drives and paper copies with the content that would be "common sense stealing".
    - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
      Very much common sense copyright violation though. Copyright means you're not allowed to copy something without permission. It's that simple. There is no "Yes but you still have your book" argument, because copyright is a claim on commercial value, not a claim on instantiation. There's some minimal wiggle room for fair use, but clearly making an electronic copy and creating a condensed electronic version of the content - no matter how abstracted - and using it for profit is not fair use.
      - chii 2y ago
        > Copyright means you're not allowed to copy something without permission. but is training an AI copying? And if so, why isn't someone learning from said work not considered copying in their brain?
        hiatus 2y ago
        Is training an AI the same as a person learning something? You haven't shown that to be the case.
        chii 2y ago
        no i havent, but judging by the name - machine learning - i think it is the case.
        yyuugg 2y ago
        Do you think starfish and jellyfish are fish? Judging by the name they are...
        nkrisc 2y ago
        Because AI isn’t a person.
        throw646577 2y ago
        > but is training an AI copying? If the AI produces chunks of training set nearly verbatim when prompted, it looks like copying. > And if so, why isn't someone learning from said work not considered copying in their brain? Well, their brain, while learning, is not someone's published work product, for one thing. This should be obvious. But their brain can violate copyright by producing work as the output of that learning, and be guilty of plagiarism, etc. If I memorise a passage of your copyrighted book when I am a child, and then write it in my book when I am an adult, I've infringed. The fact that most jurisdictions don't consider the work of an AI to be copyrightable does not mean it cannot ever be infringing.
IshKebab 2y ago
It's not definitely illegal yet.
- yyuugg 2y ago
  It's also definitely not not illegal either. Case law is very much tbd.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

[flagged]

Xelynega 2y ago
If we really want to be technical, in common law systems anything is legal as long as the highest court to challenge it decides it's legal. I guess I should have used the phrase "common sense stealing in any other context" to be more precise?
- krisoft 2y ago
  > I guess I should have used the phrase "common sense stealing in any other context" to be more precise? Clearly not common sense stealing. The Intercept was not deprived of their content. If OpenAI would have sneaked into their office and server farm and took all the hard drives and paper copies with the content that would be "common sense stealing".
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    Very much common sense copyright violation though. Copyright means you're not allowed to copy something without permission. It's that simple. There is no "Yes but you still have your book" argument, because copyright is a claim on commercial value, not a claim on instantiation. There's some minimal wiggle room for fair use, but clearly making an electronic copy and creating a condensed electronic version of the content - no matter how abstracted - and using it for profit is not fair use.
    - chii 2y ago
      > Copyright means you're not allowed to copy something without permission. but is training an AI copying? And if so, why isn't someone learning from said work not considered copying in their brain?
      - hiatus 2y ago
        Is training an AI the same as a person learning something? You haven't shown that to be the case.
        chii 2y ago
        no i havent, but judging by the name - machine learning - i think it is the case.
        yyuugg 2y ago
        Do you think starfish and jellyfish are fish? Judging by the name they are...
      - nkrisc 2y ago
        Because AI isn’t a person.
      - throw646577 2y ago
        > but is training an AI copying? If the AI produces chunks of training set nearly verbatim when prompted, it looks like copying. > And if so, why isn't someone learning from said work not considered copying in their brain? Well, their brain, while learning, is not someone's published work product, for one thing. This should be obvious. But their brain can violate copyright by producing work as the output of that learning, and be guilty of plagiarism, etc. If I memorise a passage of your copyrighted book when I am a child, and then write it in my book when I am an adult, I've infringed. The fact that most jurisdictions don't consider the work of an AI to be copyrightable does not mean it cannot ever be infringing.

IshKebab 2y ago

It's not definitely illegal yet.

yyuugg 2y ago
It's also definitely not not illegal either. Case law is very much tbd.