3 ms·

Because copyright last for 75+ years so there is relatively little that is public domain. Why should training be subject to copyright? (and at what stages of t

by slyall 2y ago

Because copyright last for 75+ years so there is relatively little that is public domain. Why should training be subject to copyright? (and at what stages of the process). People learn most of what they know from copyright media, giving copyright owners more control over that might be a bad idea But AI companies are paying content owners for for access recently (partially to reduce legal risk, partially to get access to material not publicly available) but then giving deep-pocket Incumbent a monopoly might be a bad idea.

WillAdams 2y ago
Because training intrinsically involves making a copy. Perhaps requiring that deep-pocket companies actually compensate copyright holders would be a starting point for a fairer system?
- ticulatedspline 2y ago
  Mostly I see two outcomes. Either the holders "lose" and it basically follows "human" rules meaning you can train a model on any (legally obtained) material but there's restrictions on use and regurgitation. I say "human" rules because that's basically how people work. Any artist or writer worth their salt has been trained on gobs of copyrighted material, and you can totally hire people to use their knowledge to violate copyright now. the other option is the holders "win" and these models must only be trained on owned material, in which case the market will collapse into a handful of models controlled by companies that already own huge swaths of intellectual property. basically think DisneyDiffusion or RandomHouse-LLM. Nobody is getting paid more but it's all above board since it's been trained on all the data they have rights to. You might see some holders benefit if they have a particularly large and useful dataset, like Reddit or the Wall Street Journal.
  - intended 2y ago
    Both no? People with power and money, can get paid. Artists who have no reach and recognition get exploited. Especially those from countries which arent in north America and Europe.

by slyall 2y ago

WillAdams 2y ago

Because training intrinsically involves making a copy. Perhaps requiring that deep-pocket companies actually compensate copyright holders would be a starting point for a fairer system?

ticulatedspline 2y ago
Mostly I see two outcomes. Either the holders "lose" and it basically follows "human" rules meaning you can train a model on any (legally obtained) material but there's restrictions on use and regurgitation. I say "human" rules because that's basically how people work. Any artist or writer worth their salt has been trained on gobs of copyrighted material, and you can totally hire people to use their knowledge to violate copyright now. the other option is the holders "win" and these models must only be trained on owned material, in which case the market will collapse into a handful of models controlled by companies that already own huge swaths of intellectual property. basically think DisneyDiffusion or RandomHouse-LLM. Nobody is getting paid more but it's all above board since it's been trained on all the data they have rights to. You might see some holders benefit if they have a particularly large and useful dataset, like Reddit or the Wall Street Journal.
- intended 2y ago
  Both no? People with power and money, can get paid. Artists who have no reach and recognition get exploited. Especially those from countries which arent in north America and Europe.