5 ms·

This is such a radical take on IP rights and AI "learning" that I can only assume you're consciously choosing to misunderstand both. On the off chance that you

This is such a radical take on IP rights and AI "learning" that I can only assume you're consciously choosing to misunderstand both. On the off chance that you are not: IP-rights does not cover "learning from" a source. What ML does is not in any way akin to human learning in methodology. When we call it learning that's an analogy. You can not argue a legal case from analogy alone.

constantcrying 2y ago
I believe that a creator has no right to dictate what other people do with his creations. I thought this was the most common anti-IP sentiment.
- delusional 2y ago
  I'm glad I elaborated. A complete dismissal of all IP-rights is a very fringe very radical position. Most people have a more nuanced IP-rights view about which IP-rights ought to be protected and for how long. You'll find many more people of the opinion that authors life+70 years is too long, than you will dismissing it entirely.
- 6P58r3MXJSLi 2y ago
  Isn't it the opposite: the author is the only one who has the right to dictate what other people do with his creation? An extreme example: I do not want my code to be used in weapons guidance systems. Am I not expressing my rights as an author?
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    I am against IP, so you should not have that right.
    - 6P58r3MXJSLi 2y ago
      I am against corporations profiting from others people works, for free. If that was not allowed, if people could only use my work for no profit purposes, I agree. That's what CC (creative commons) is for, though. I am also in favour of people "remixing" and even making money out of it, but the intent it's paramount to me. As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion. More than once I contacted the author of some work I liked and they gave me free license to use it, no questions asked (after explaining what I would use it for). IMO basic cooperation between good willing people goes a long way, without stripping authors of their rights. Edit: typos
      - constantcrying 2y ago
        >As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion. IP is nonsense. It is putting an ownership over an idea, but ideas aren't objects. You can not steal or destroy an idea, giving ownership rights to ideas is absurd. If you think IP should not exist then creative output is free to use by everyone and of course corporations are also free to profit from it.
        6P58r3MXJSLi 2y ago
        > It is putting an ownership over an artifact You can copy the idea though And I say copy because before the author made it in the form of an artifact, you didn't know it could be done, or you could have done it on your own. I can draw ocean waves, nobody owns ocean waves But if I cooy verbatim hokusai ocean waves, it's mehhhhhhhh I'm a ripoff loser and should be punished for doing it Edit: but I like your closing sentence. Free for all to use it as they see fit is an interesting thought, however I think that imbalance of the means of production will always make the corporations the ultimate beneficiaries, so we should also rethink how our economic system works. For example: if I could copy the avengers, people would say "it's a cheap copy of Disney's original" and I would hardly make any money out of it. It's an interesting POV nonetheless.
        2y ago
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    Or, even more extreme: I don't want anyone to view or read my work, at all.
- SamBam 2y ago
  "no right to dictate what other people do with his creations" seems a little radical -- i.e., you don't believe copyright should exist? Do you think a movie's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to use a pirated version of a movie to display for 100% profit at my 10,000 AMC movie theaters? Or a book's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to copy their book, put my name on it, and sell it on Amazon for half-price? If you agree that a creator can do those things, then you're already in a gray area between "they can dictate everything" and "they have no rights." At that point, you're arguing over the precise location of the line.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >you don't believe copyright should exist? Yes. It should not. I think that was very clear when I said I was against intellectual property, not for it being more limited. >Do you think a movie's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to use a pirated version of a movie to display for 100% profit at my 10,000 AMC movie theaters? Or a book's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to copy their book, put my name on it, and sell it on Amazon for half-price? I do not care at all.
    - 6510 2y ago
      What are your thoughts on peoples identity and trade marks?
      - EvanAnderson 2y ago
        Not the OP, but I have some feelings about that. The limits on trademark law are much more fair, in terms of the balance afforded to the public and the limited monopoly granted to the rightsholder. Trademark law can be abused, for sure, but it hasn't been used in the same abusive way as copyright law, nor has it expanded to be functionally infinite and all-encompassing.
      - constantcrying 2y ago
        I think the creative part of trademarks should be free to use, e.g. a film can have Coca-Cola bottles or some corporate mascot. But if you are commiting fraud, e.g. by labeling a Coca-Cola bottle, not from the company, as such then this should be forbidden. Not on the basis that Coca-Cola has any right to be the only ones using their logo, but that customers have a right to not be defrauded and make choices from whom they buy. As long as the trademark is not used to defraud people it can be used however people want. Someone's identity, e.g. their likeness and identification aren't just ideas. They actually physically exist. (I assume here that by identity you don't mean how they view themselves). For identities I think it is very important to consider publication. If you publish something you have no right to tell others what to do with it. An actor in a movie has no right to tell someone that their fan cut of a movie is not allowed to exist. On the other hand, as long as you do not publish some part of your identity you should have a right to it. If you are recognizable on a photo that you do not want to have published it should not be published. To make it short I essentially agree with the GDPR, with the exception of being able to retract consent, but I do not believe it invalidates my stance on IP in any way. Your likeness is not an immaterial idea derived from a creative process, neither is your own house address. You should be allowed to publish it and by publishing it, that publication is no longer yours to own and control.
- caconym_ 2y ago
  In other words, (for instance) you believe in the right of massive corporations who control the lion's share of consumer distribution channels to, on an ongoing basis, scrape all authored content that is made publicly available in any form (paid or not) and sell it in a heavily discounted form, without the permission of authors and other rights holders and with no compensation to them, while freezing out the "official" published versions from their distribution channels entirely. More generally, you believe that creators should create for free, and that massive moneyed and powerful interests should reap the profits, even while those same creators toil in the mines to support their passions which do evidently have real value, though it is denied to them. You think this will make the world better? For whom? Or worse, for whom? Or you place the highest importance on having a maximalist viewpoint that simply cannot be argued with, because being unassailably right in an abstract rhetorical framing is most important to you? Or you crave the elegance of such a position, reality and utility notwithstanding? Or you feel the need to rationalize your otherwise unfounded "belief" that piracy and/or training AI on protected IP should be allowed because you like it and are involved with it yourself? Or you think ASI is going to completely transform the world tomorrow, and whether we get Culture-style luxury gay space communism or something far darker, none of this will matter so we should eat, drink, and be merry today? Or some hybrid of that and a belief that we should actively strive toward and enable such a transition, and IP law stands in its way? What is it? I've seen some version of all of these and frankly they are all childish nonsense (usually espoused by actual children). Are you a new species?
  - EvanAnderson 2y ago
    Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally. All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale. To state it in an arguably hyperbolic manner: The "moneyed interests" you're railing against exist because of the current scheme of "intellectual property". They reap virtually all the benefits of human intellectual toil in the system already. Wiping away their stranglehold on the market would be a good thing for creators. Taking away the legal framework their existence is predicated upon would do that. The copyright industry's influence on social norms, including the massive shift of the social contract in favor of their interests ( functionally infinite copyright terms, attacks of fair use, plundering the public domain to sell it back, works being lost forever because they are "orphaned", etc), all seems natural to you because they want it to be that way. The concept of someone "owning" an idea, which seems perfectly normal to you, was taught to you by people who want the world to be that way, not because it's some natural law. You've been conditioned to believe it your entire life. I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down, but the needle has moved so far away from fair that burning it all down seems pretty satisfying.
stale2002 2y ago
> You can not argue a legal case from analogy alone. Yes they can because the analogy directly applies. The technical details of how a computer learns, vs a human learns doesn't really matter here, and is an irrelevant difference. The reason why the analogy directly applies is because in both cases it is about how IP cannot really control how someone uses the IP. Just like how IP laws cannot prevent you from listening to music while standing on your head, it also cannot prevent you from training your models on it (while also standing on your head, lets say!). Instead, IP laws only prevents the publishing of copies of the IP. So the point and the analogy stands.
- delusional 2y ago
  I don't know what to tell you. You will find no judge willing to entertain your analogy without you justifying why it's useful in the particular case. You are going to have to explain the difference, and you are going to have to argue why those differences don't matter.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    > You will find no judge willing to entertain your Yes they will. Judges have already ruled that you can't just ban people from using your IP, like by standing on your head. It is only publishing someone else's IP that is disallowed. This is copyright law 101. You can it seriously be arguing that an IP owner could ban someone from listening to their music while standing on one's head, for example.
    - delusional 2y ago
      Do you have a case where a defendant tried to argue that being upside down protected him from a copyright claim? You claim that they have decided it, can you cite that decision?
      - stale2002 2y ago
        You don't understand. The point here is that a copyright holder does not have infinite ability to prevent other people from using their IP. Instead, they can only prevent copies from being distributed.
ImPleadThe5th 2y ago
It makes me so uncomfortable that the relatively informed people on HN seem to equate a human learning to AI learning.
- andy99 2y ago
  Care to elaborate?
visarga 2y ago
> What ML does is not in any way akin to human learning in methodology. When we call it learning that's an analogy. Of course it's different, but if we look closely, it is not copying. The model itself is smaller, sometimes 1000x smaller, than the training set. Being made of billions of examples, the impact of any one of them is very small (de minimis). If you try to replicate something closely with AI it fails. If regurgitation was a huge problem we'd see lots of lawsuits on output, but we see most suits for input (training). That means authors can't identify cases of infringement in the outputs.
- delusional 2y ago
  I'm not sure I agree that most suits are on input. Most of the ones I've read have been related to the output of a model. Early worried about CoPilot were about its tendency to regurgitate code verbatim. The WaPo suit was about verbatim output of segments of their articles.

constantcrying 2y ago

I believe that a creator has no right to dictate what other people do with his creations. I thought this was the most common anti-IP sentiment.

delusional 2y ago
I'm glad I elaborated. A complete dismissal of all IP-rights is a very fringe very radical position. Most people have a more nuanced IP-rights view about which IP-rights ought to be protected and for how long. You'll find many more people of the opinion that authors life+70 years is too long, than you will dismissing it entirely.
6P58r3MXJSLi 2y ago
Isn't it the opposite: the author is the only one who has the right to dictate what other people do with his creation? An extreme example: I do not want my code to be used in weapons guidance systems. Am I not expressing my rights as an author?
- constantcrying 2y ago
  I am against IP, so you should not have that right.
  - 6P58r3MXJSLi 2y ago
    I am against corporations profiting from others people works, for free. If that was not allowed, if people could only use my work for no profit purposes, I agree. That's what CC (creative commons) is for, though. I am also in favour of people "remixing" and even making money out of it, but the intent it's paramount to me. As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion. More than once I contacted the author of some work I liked and they gave me free license to use it, no questions asked (after explaining what I would use it for). IMO basic cooperation between good willing people goes a long way, without stripping authors of their rights. Edit: typos
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      >As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion. IP is nonsense. It is putting an ownership over an idea, but ideas aren't objects. You can not steal or destroy an idea, giving ownership rights to ideas is absurd. If you think IP should not exist then creative output is free to use by everyone and of course corporations are also free to profit from it.
      - 6P58r3MXJSLi 2y ago
        > It is putting an ownership over an artifact You can copy the idea though And I say copy because before the author made it in the form of an artifact, you didn't know it could be done, or you could have done it on your own. I can draw ocean waves, nobody owns ocean waves But if I cooy verbatim hokusai ocean waves, it's mehhhhhhhh I'm a ripoff loser and should be punished for doing it Edit: but I like your closing sentence. Free for all to use it as they see fit is an interesting thought, however I think that imbalance of the means of production will always make the corporations the ultimate beneficiaries, so we should also rethink how our economic system works. For example: if I could copy the avengers, people would say "it's a cheap copy of Disney's original" and I would hardly make any money out of it. It's an interesting POV nonetheless.
        2y ago
- throwway120385 2y ago
  Or, even more extreme: I don't want anyone to view or read my work, at all.
SamBam 2y ago
"no right to dictate what other people do with his creations" seems a little radical -- i.e., you don't believe copyright should exist? Do you think a movie's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to use a pirated version of a movie to display for 100% profit at my 10,000 AMC movie theaters? Or a book's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to copy their book, put my name on it, and sell it on Amazon for half-price? If you agree that a creator can do those things, then you're already in a gray area between "they can dictate everything" and "they have no rights." At that point, you're arguing over the precise location of the line.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >you don't believe copyright should exist? Yes. It should not. I think that was very clear when I said I was against intellectual property, not for it being more limited. >Do you think a movie's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to use a pirated version of a movie to display for 100% profit at my 10,000 AMC movie theaters? Or a book's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to copy their book, put my name on it, and sell it on Amazon for half-price? I do not care at all.
  - 6510 2y ago
    What are your thoughts on peoples identity and trade marks?
    - EvanAnderson 2y ago
      Not the OP, but I have some feelings about that. The limits on trademark law are much more fair, in terms of the balance afforded to the public and the limited monopoly granted to the rightsholder. Trademark law can be abused, for sure, but it hasn't been used in the same abusive way as copyright law, nor has it expanded to be functionally infinite and all-encompassing.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      I think the creative part of trademarks should be free to use, e.g. a film can have Coca-Cola bottles or some corporate mascot. But if you are commiting fraud, e.g. by labeling a Coca-Cola bottle, not from the company, as such then this should be forbidden. Not on the basis that Coca-Cola has any right to be the only ones using their logo, but that customers have a right to not be defrauded and make choices from whom they buy. As long as the trademark is not used to defraud people it can be used however people want. Someone's identity, e.g. their likeness and identification aren't just ideas. They actually physically exist. (I assume here that by identity you don't mean how they view themselves). For identities I think it is very important to consider publication. If you publish something you have no right to tell others what to do with it. An actor in a movie has no right to tell someone that their fan cut of a movie is not allowed to exist. On the other hand, as long as you do not publish some part of your identity you should have a right to it. If you are recognizable on a photo that you do not want to have published it should not be published. To make it short I essentially agree with the GDPR, with the exception of being able to retract consent, but I do not believe it invalidates my stance on IP in any way. Your likeness is not an immaterial idea derived from a creative process, neither is your own house address. You should be allowed to publish it and by publishing it, that publication is no longer yours to own and control.
caconym_ 2y ago
In other words, (for instance) you believe in the right of massive corporations who control the lion's share of consumer distribution channels to, on an ongoing basis, scrape all authored content that is made publicly available in any form (paid or not) and sell it in a heavily discounted form, without the permission of authors and other rights holders and with no compensation to them, while freezing out the "official" published versions from their distribution channels entirely. More generally, you believe that creators should create for free, and that massive moneyed and powerful interests should reap the profits, even while those same creators toil in the mines to support their passions which do evidently have real value, though it is denied to them. You think this will make the world better? For whom? Or worse, for whom? Or you place the highest importance on having a maximalist viewpoint that simply cannot be argued with, because being unassailably right in an abstract rhetorical framing is most important to you? Or you crave the elegance of such a position, reality and utility notwithstanding? Or you feel the need to rationalize your otherwise unfounded "belief" that piracy and/or training AI on protected IP should be allowed because you like it and are involved with it yourself? Or you think ASI is going to completely transform the world tomorrow, and whether we get Culture-style luxury gay space communism or something far darker, none of this will matter so we should eat, drink, and be merry today? Or some hybrid of that and a belief that we should actively strive toward and enable such a transition, and IP law stands in its way? What is it? I've seen some version of all of these and frankly they are all childish nonsense (usually espoused by actual children). Are you a new species?
- EvanAnderson 2y ago
  Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally. All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale. To state it in an arguably hyperbolic manner: The "moneyed interests" you're railing against exist because of the current scheme of "intellectual property". They reap virtually all the benefits of human intellectual toil in the system already. Wiping away their stranglehold on the market would be a good thing for creators. Taking away the legal framework their existence is predicated upon would do that. The copyright industry's influence on social norms, including the massive shift of the social contract in favor of their interests ( functionally infinite copyright terms, attacks of fair use, plundering the public domain to sell it back, works being lost forever because they are "orphaned", etc), all seems natural to you because they want it to be that way. The concept of someone "owning" an idea, which seems perfectly normal to you, was taught to you by people who want the world to be that way, not because it's some natural law. You've been conditioned to believe it your entire life. I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down, but the needle has moved so far away from fair that burning it all down seems pretty satisfying.

stale2002 2y ago

> You can not argue a legal case from analogy alone. Yes they can because the analogy directly applies. The technical details of how a computer learns, vs a human learns doesn't really matter here, and is an irrelevant difference. The reason why the analogy directly applies is because in both cases it is about how IP cannot really control how someone uses the IP. Just like how IP laws cannot prevent you from listening to music while standing on your head, it also cannot prevent you from training your models on it (while also standing on your head, lets say!). Instead, IP laws only prevents the publishing of copies of the IP. So the point and the analogy stands.

delusional 2y ago
I don't know what to tell you. You will find no judge willing to entertain your analogy without you justifying why it's useful in the particular case. You are going to have to explain the difference, and you are going to have to argue why those differences don't matter.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > You will find no judge willing to entertain your Yes they will. Judges have already ruled that you can't just ban people from using your IP, like by standing on your head. It is only publishing someone else's IP that is disallowed. This is copyright law 101. You can it seriously be arguing that an IP owner could ban someone from listening to their music while standing on one's head, for example.
  - delusional 2y ago
    Do you have a case where a defendant tried to argue that being upside down protected him from a copyright claim? You claim that they have decided it, can you cite that decision?
    - stale2002 2y ago
      You don't understand. The point here is that a copyright holder does not have infinite ability to prevent other people from using their IP. Instead, they can only prevent copies from being distributed.

ImPleadThe5th 2y ago

It makes me so uncomfortable that the relatively informed people on HN seem to equate a human learning to AI learning.

andy99 2y ago
Care to elaborate?

visarga 2y ago

> What ML does is not in any way akin to human learning in methodology. When we call it learning that's an analogy. Of course it's different, but if we look closely, it is not copying. The model itself is smaller, sometimes 1000x smaller, than the training set. Being made of billions of examples, the impact of any one of them is very small (de minimis). If you try to replicate something closely with AI it fails. If regurgitation was a huge problem we'd see lots of lawsuits on output, but we see most suits for input (training). That means authors can't identify cases of infringement in the outputs.

delusional 2y ago
I'm not sure I agree that most suits are on input. Most of the ones I've read have been related to the output of a model. Early worried about CoPilot were about its tendency to regurgitate code verbatim. The WaPo suit was about verbatim output of segments of their articles.