3 ms·

Maybe the infringement occurs when a user uses the model to produce the facsimile output.

throwaway173738 2y ago
Good idea. Let’s make it a minefield of copyright infringement for the user so they never know whether it’s emitting something novel or it’s emitting AGPL code.
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  Why the heavy handed internet sarcasm? Youtube has handled this exact issue with fingerprints for a while.
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  That's what the legal department at my employer (huge multinational corp) came up with: When an employee uses one of the approved gen-ai models it's on the employee to check the output isn't infringing - legal argues that not doing so would be grossly negligent, making the employee personally liable.
  - throwaway173738 2y ago
    If my company had a policy like that I would just not use AI tools at all for anything.
    - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
      Best possible outcome. Unlikely to be, but maybe even the intended outcome from legal's POV.
SilasX 2y ago
I agree that you should call the output copyright infringement (or not) without regard to how you got there. So, if it produces an identical copy of the text, or of e.g. Indiana Jones, that you then distribute it, sure, that is copyright infringement. But the mere act of using them for training and producing new works shouldn't be! In fact, until 2022, pretty much no one regarded it as a copyright violation to "learn from copyrighted works to create new ones" -- just the opposite! That's how it's supposed to work! Only when hated corporations did it with bots, did the internet hive mind suddenly decide that's stealing, and take this expansive view of IP rights (while, of course, having historically screamed bloody murder about any attempts to fight piracy).
- LocalH 2y ago
  Scale matters. There's a difference between individual humans taking time to study copyrighted works, and so-called "AI" doing it on the scale of the equivalent of millions of man hours.
  - SilasX 2y ago
    But what about that kind of scale matters to this particular area? The article spends a lot of time showing the substantive parallels between how humans and AIs learn e.g. in how they never store an exact copy, but a high-level understanding that rarely produces anything verbatim.

Good idea. Let’s make it a minefield of copyright infringement for the user so they never know whether it’s emitting something novel or it’s emitting AGPL code.

CuriouslyC 2y ago
Why the heavy handed internet sarcasm? Youtube has handled this exact issue with fingerprints for a while.
formerly_proven 2y ago
That's what the legal department at my employer (huge multinational corp) came up with: When an employee uses one of the approved gen-ai models it's on the employee to check the output isn't infringing - legal argues that not doing so would be grossly negligent, making the employee personally liable.
- throwaway173738 2y ago
  If my company had a policy like that I would just not use AI tools at all for anything.
  - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
    Best possible outcome. Unlikely to be, but maybe even the intended outcome from legal's POV.

SilasX 2y ago

I agree that you should call the output copyright infringement (or not) without regard to how you got there. So, if it produces an identical copy of the text, or of e.g. Indiana Jones, that you then distribute it, sure, that is copyright infringement. But the mere act of using them for training and producing new works shouldn't be! In fact, until 2022, pretty much no one regarded it as a copyright violation to "learn from copyrighted works to create new ones" -- just the opposite! That's how it's supposed to work! Only when hated corporations did it with bots, did the internet hive mind suddenly decide that's stealing, and take this expansive view of IP rights (while, of course, having historically screamed bloody murder about any attempts to fight piracy).

LocalH 2y ago
Scale matters. There's a difference between individual humans taking time to study copyrighted works, and so-called "AI" doing it on the scale of the equivalent of millions of man hours.
- SilasX 2y ago
  But what about that kind of scale matters to this particular area? The article spends a lot of time showing the substantive parallels between how humans and AIs learn e.g. in how they never store an exact copy, but a high-level understanding that rarely produces anything verbatim.