5 ms·
Since there is no such thing as training rights, they would have a reasonable claim.
by pyrale 2y ago
Since there is no such thing as training rights, they would have a reasonable claim.
- amelius 2y agoI think it is more reasonable for content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data. After all, content is what make AI possible, and content owners could easily start their own LLM if they wanted to since a lot of it is open source now.
- visarga 2y agoThat is not reasonable, should a child heed the restrictions placed on the 1st grade math book later in life, when they become PhD?
- cowl 2y agothey are not content "owners" though. they have a a copyright that regulates who can copy and distribute that data. they don't have a say how that content is used when acquired legally as long as you activity doesn't constitute a distribution.
- flir 2y agoYou're taking an "everything not permitted is forbidden" approach, which contradicts the common law principle of residual freedom. This would automatically outlaw any new use of information (eg music sampling) by default. If all novel uses were banned from the outset, cultural progress would suffer immeasurably.
- amelius 2y agoI don't think cultural progress will suffer from copyright holders preventing AI from using their content. What I think will suffer more is the bank accounts of AI corporations.
- flir 2y agoSo to be clear, you're arguing this one specific use (machine learning) should be knocked on the head? And not all novel uses? Because "content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data" is quite broad.
- amelius 2y agoNo, that's not what I said. If we want to use data owned by others and make money with it, we can do two things: (1) just grab the data (2) ask the content owners I think what is fair is closer to (2) than to (1). Especially since the data was originally intended for human consumption. What you call "training" is what another person might call "mechanized processing", and would not fall within fair use of the data.
- flir 2y agoI'm honestly at a loss here. I can't figure out what your position is. > If we want to use data owned by others and make money with it [...] ask the content owners So is it "no commercial use without permission" you're arguing for? > mechanized processing Or are you arguing that training should fall under the existing mechanical license provisions for songs? I don't think you are, because those licenses are compulsory, and you seem to want an element of choice for the copyright holder. Ok, put the chatbots aside for the moment. If [brand new use] for a book is invented, and I buy a copy of that book and want to do [that new thing] with it, should the copyright holder of that book be able to block me?
- stale2002 2y ago>I think it is more reasonable for content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data. They lose that right as soon as they sell it to other people. No, you can't sell a book to someone and then sue anyone who reads the book, upside down. That would be ridiculous. If you don't want someone reading your book upside down, or training on it, then don't sell books.
- amelius 2y agoYou assume that "training" and human learning are similar things. This is a bit like saying that taking a holiday picture of someone, and putting a surveillance camera on the street are the same thing. I think many books actually prohibit the storage into an information retrieval system and AI can be considered a form of that.
- stale2002 2y ago> You assume that "training" and human learning are similar things. No I don't. Because a human is choosing to enact the training regardless. Just like if a human held a book up to a rock. It would be ridiculous that an author could ban a human from "training" a rock from a book. Its their book, and they can show it to a rock if they want!
- amelius 2y agoIf you buy a DVD and show it at work, then that's also ok, because it is your DVD and you can do with it whatever you want? Turns out, nope, that's not ok.
- stale2002 2y ago> show it at work No that distribution. So my point stands. If you sell someone a book, you can't just put arbitrary restrictions on it. You cannot ban someone from training a model on it, nor ban you ban someone freak reading it upside down, or showing it to a rock. You tried to claim that basically any restriction can be put on how something is used. Thats simply not true. Distribution is a specific carve out that has regulations on it. But someone absolutely could train a model, as well as read it upside, or show it to a rock.