3 ms·

>will write a bill legalizing training on non expressly licensed data. Which should be assumed to be legal already, even without the expressly written bill. Co

>will write a bill legalizing training on non expressly licensed data. Which should be assumed to be legal already, even without the expressly written bill. Copyright maximalism is anti-human.

darth_avocado 2y ago
Stealing is more anti human.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Surprisingly when it comes to software, music, and movie stealing we find that stealing requires one party to lose something but when it comes to OpenAI stealing is happily colloquially defined. What an interesting curiosity.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  When I steal a thing from you, you no longer have the thing. When I steal a dance you just invented, you're very butthurt about it and run crying to mommy "make him stop copying me!". Then you grow up and bribe Congress to make it illegal. Except for the "growing up" part, that never happened.
thot_experiment 2y ago
This is the way. We need to restrict IP protection, especially temporally.
account42 2y ago
Expecting megacorporations to play by the same rules they want us to follow when in comes to their rights is pretty far from copyright maximalism. Anti-human is giving corporations more rights than humans.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
> "The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to massively-plagiarize anything they want after investing at least $100,000,000 on a computational pipeline to statistically launder its origins and details." -- Cyberpunk Anatole France ____ If I were to steel-man your comment, it would be something like: "Scraping and training must be fair-use because people can be building all sorts of systems with ethical and valuable purposes. What you generate from a trained system can easily infringe, but that's a separate thing." Also, where does the GNU Public License fall in terms of "anti-human copyright maximalization"? Is it bad because it uses fire, or is it good because it fights fire with fire?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >it would be something like: "Scraping and training must be fair-use because It wouldn't be "fair use". It makes no copies. "Fair use" is the horseshit the courts dreamt up so they could pretend copyright wasn't broken when a copy absolutely needed to be made. This makes no copies, so it doesn't even need "fair use". Instead, there are people who believe that because they made something long ago that they and their descendants into the far future are entitled to tax everyone who might ever come across that thing let alone actually want copies of the thing. Your argument must sound intelligent to you, but it starts from a premise of "of course copyright is the only non-lunatic policy people could ever imagine", and goes from there. You can't even think in any other terms. > Also, where does the GNU Public License fall in terms of "anti-human copyright maximalization"? Is it bad because it uses fire, or is it good because it fights fire with fire? Stallman is clever to twist the rules a little to get a comparatively sane result from them, but there are others who aren't clever enough to even recognize that that's what he's doing. So, in their minds "what about the gnu license" seems like a gotcha. I won't name those people, but their username starts with Terr and ends with an underscore.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Your argument must sound intelligent to you, but [...] You can't even think in any other terms. > others who aren't clever enough [...] I won't name those people, but their username starts with Terr and ends with an underscore. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ____________ > It wouldn't be "fair use". It makes no copies. Incorrect, the real-world behavior we're discussing involves unambiguous copies, where LLM companies scrape and retain the data in a huge training corpus, since they want to train a new iteration of the model when they adjust the algorithms. That accumulation is analogous to photocopying books and magazines that you borrow/buy before returning/selling them again, and arranging your new copies into a clubhouse or company break-room. Such a thing is not usually considered "fair use." In a hypothetical world where all content is merely streamed into a model, then the question of whether model-weights can be considered a copy with a special form of lossy compression is... separate, and much trickier. > Your argument [...] starts from a premise of "of course copyright is the only non-lunatic policy people could ever imagine" Nope, it's just the context of the discussion because it's status-quo we're living with and the one we're faced with incrementally changing. If you're going to rage-post about it, at least stop and direct that rage appropriately. > Stallman is clever to twist the rules a little to get a comparatively sane result from them, but [you don't] recognize that that's what he's doing. I already described the GPL as "fighting fire with fire", I don't understand how the idiom didn't make sense to you.

>will write a bill legalizing training on non expressly licensed data. Which should be assumed to be legal already, even without the expressly written bill. Copyright maximalism is anti-human.

darth_avocado 2y ago

Stealing is more anti human.

renewiltord 2y ago
Surprisingly when it comes to software, music, and movie stealing we find that stealing requires one party to lose something but when it comes to OpenAI stealing is happily colloquially defined. What an interesting curiosity.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
When I steal a thing from you, you no longer have the thing. When I steal a dance you just invented, you're very butthurt about it and run crying to mommy "make him stop copying me!". Then you grow up and bribe Congress to make it illegal. Except for the "growing up" part, that never happened.

thot_experiment 2y ago

This is the way. We need to restrict IP protection, especially temporally.

account42 2y ago

Expecting megacorporations to play by the same rules they want us to follow when in comes to their rights is pretty far from copyright maximalism. Anti-human is giving corporations more rights than humans.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Terr_ 2y ago

> "The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to massively-plagiarize anything they want after investing at least $100,000,000 on a computational pipeline to statistically launder its origins and details." -- Cyberpunk Anatole France ____ If I were to steel-man your comment, it would be something like: "Scraping and training must be fair-use because people can be building all sorts of systems with ethical and valuable purposes. What you generate from a trained system can easily infringe, but that's a separate thing." Also, where does the GNU Public License fall in terms of "anti-human copyright maximalization"? Is it bad because it uses fire, or is it good because it fights fire with fire?

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>it would be something like: "Scraping and training must be fair-use because It wouldn't be "fair use". It makes no copies. "Fair use" is the horseshit the courts dreamt up so they could pretend copyright wasn't broken when a copy absolutely needed to be made. This makes no copies, so it doesn't even need "fair use". Instead, there are people who believe that because they made something long ago that they and their descendants into the far future are entitled to tax everyone who might ever come across that thing let alone actually want copies of the thing. Your argument must sound intelligent to you, but it starts from a premise of "of course copyright is the only non-lunatic policy people could ever imagine", and goes from there. You can't even think in any other terms. > Also, where does the GNU Public License fall in terms of "anti-human copyright maximalization"? Is it bad because it uses fire, or is it good because it fights fire with fire? Stallman is clever to twist the rules a little to get a comparatively sane result from them, but there are others who aren't clever enough to even recognize that that's what he's doing. So, in their minds "what about the gnu license" seems like a gotcha. I won't name those people, but their username starts with Terr and ends with an underscore.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Your argument must sound intelligent to you, but [...] You can't even think in any other terms. > others who aren't clever enough [...] I won't name those people, but their username starts with Terr and ends with an underscore. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ____________ > It wouldn't be "fair use". It makes no copies. Incorrect, the real-world behavior we're discussing involves unambiguous copies, where LLM companies scrape and retain the data in a huge training corpus, since they want to train a new iteration of the model when they adjust the algorithms. That accumulation is analogous to photocopying books and magazines that you borrow/buy before returning/selling them again, and arranging your new copies into a clubhouse or company break-room. Such a thing is not usually considered "fair use." In a hypothetical world where all content is merely streamed into a model, then the question of whether model-weights can be considered a copy with a special form of lossy compression is... separate, and much trickier. > Your argument [...] starts from a premise of "of course copyright is the only non-lunatic policy people could ever imagine" Nope, it's just the context of the discussion because it's status-quo we're living with and the one we're faced with incrementally changing. If you're going to rage-post about it, at least stop and direct that rage appropriately. > Stallman is clever to twist the rules a little to get a comparatively sane result from them, but [you don't] recognize that that's what he's doing. I already described the GPL as "fighting fire with fire", I don't understand how the idiom didn't make sense to you.