3 ms·
I think an AI should be treated like a human. A human can consume copyright material (possibly after paying for it), but not reproduce it. I don't see any reaso
by deepsummer 2y ago
I think an AI should be treated like a human. A human can consume copyright material (possibly after paying for it), but not reproduce it. I don't see any reason why the same can't be true for an AI.
- actionfromafar 2y agoThen, we should also put the AI in jail when it's breaking copyright laws. Or being an accessory to breaking copyright law.
- deepsummer 2y agoAn AI that's breaking copyright laws shouldn't be legal. So yes, it's kind of like putting it in jail.
- nness 2y agoThe issue is so much about consumption of copyright material, but acquisition of that material. Like a real person, AI companies need to adhere to IP and license or purchase the materials that they wish to consume. If AI companies licensed all materials they acquired for training purposes, this would be a non-issue. OpenAI are looking for a free pass to break copyright law, and through that, also avoid any issues that would arise through reproduction.
- Palmik 2y agoA real person wouldn't have to pay to read random blog, Reddit comments, StackOverflow answers or code on GitHub (many open source licenses do not imply license for training). They might have to pay for books, or use a library. Should these cases be treated differently? If so, it might lead to more closed internet with even more paywalls.
- alphabettsy 2y agoI think those are less of an issue. They want to train on paywalled news articles, magazines and books. In addition to other media that the average person would have to pay for or would otherwise have limitations applied.
- Palmik 2y agoIn my opinion, if any copyright related rule is applied to books or other paywalled content, it should equally apply any Joe Shmoe's blog or code on GitHub.