6 ms·
The released draft report seems merely to be a litany of copyright holder complaints repeated verbatim, with little depth of reasoning to support the conclusion
by prvc 1y ago
The released draft report seems merely to be a litany of copyright holder complaints repeated verbatim, with little depth of reasoning to support the conclusions it makes.
- raverbashing 1y agoI don't have much spare sympathy here honestly
- bgwalter 1y agoThe required reasoning is not very deep though: If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism. If a savant has perfect recall, remembers text perfectly and rearranges that text to create a marginally new text, he'd be sued for breach of copyright. Only large corporations get away with it.
- scraptor 1y agoPlagiarism is not an issue of copyright law, it's an entirely separate system of rules maintained by academia. The US Copyright Office has no business having opinions about it. If a AI^W human reads 100 papers and then churns out a new one this is usually called research.
- ta1243 1y agoOnly when those papers are referenced
- dfxm12 1y agoPlease argue in good faith. A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text".
- shkkmo 1y agoThe comment is responding to this line: > If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism. That is a specific claim that is being directly addressed and pretty clearly qualifies as "good faith".
- int_19h 1y ago"Rearranging text" is not what modern LLMs do though, unless you specifically ask them to.
- dfxm12 1y agoI didn't make this claim. Feel free to bring a cogent argument to a commenter who did.
- gruez 1y ago>I didn't make this claim ??? Did you not literally comment the following? >A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text". What did you mean by that, if that's not your claim?
- dfxm12 1y agoI made that comment, but the bit in quotes is not my claim. I was quoting a grandparent post. If you read from the top, the quotation marks and general flow of the thread should make this clear.
- palmotea 1y ago> Plagiarism is not an issue of copyright law, it's an entirely separate system of rules maintained by academia. The US Copyright Office has no business having opinions about it. If a AI^W human reads 100 papers and then churns out a new one this is usually called research. If you draw a Venn Diagram of plagiarism and copyright violations, there's a big intersection. For example: if I take your paper, scratch off your name, make some minor tweaks, and submit it; I'm guilty of both plagiarism and copyright violation.
- biophysboy 1y agoHaving actually done research and published scientific papers, the key limitation is experimentation. Review papers are useful, and AI is useful, but creating new knowledge is more useful. I haven't had much luck using LLMs to extrapolate well beyond their knowledge domain.
- scraptor 1y agoI certainly don't see much value in AI generated papers myself, I just object to the claim that the mere act of reading a large number of existing papers before writing yours is inherently plagiarism.
- anigbrowl 1y agoYou were supposed to keep reading past the first sentence, instead of trying to refute the first thing you saw that you found disagreeable. By doing so, you missed the point that plagiarism is substantively different from copyright infringement.
- satanfirst 1y agoThat's not logical. If the savant has perfect recall and makes minor edits they are like a digital copy and aren't really like a human, neural network or by extension any other ML model that isn't over-fitted.
- tantalor 1y agoIf AI really could "churn out a new scientific paper" we would all be ecstatically rejoicing in the dawning of an age of AGI. We are nowhere near that.
- viraptor 1y agoWe're relatively close already https://openreview.net/pdf?id=12T3Nt22av https://openreview.net/pdf?id=12T3Nt22av And we don't need anything even close to AGI to achieve that.
- glial 1y agoIt reminds me of the old joke. "To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research."
- slipnslider 1y agoEinstein once said "the key to genius is to hide your sources well" And honestly there is truth to it. Some people (at work, in rea life, wherever) might come off very inteligent but the moment they say "oh I just read that relevant fact on reddit/twitter/news site 5 minutes ago" you realize they are just like you and repeating relevant information that was consumed recently.
- shkkmo 1y ago> If a savant has perfect recall, remembers text perfectly and rearranges that text to create a marginally new text, he'd be sued for breach of copyright. Any suits would be based on the degree the marginally new copy was fair use. You wouldn't be able to sue the savant for reading and remembering the text. Using AI to creat marginally new copies of copyrighted work is ALREADY a violation. We don't need a dramatic expansion of copyright law that says that just giving the savant the book to real is a copyright violation. Plagarism and copyright are two entirely different things. Plagarism is about citations and intellectual integrity. Copyright is a about protecting economic interests, has nothing to to with intellectual integrity, and isn't resolved by citing the original work. In fact most of the contexts where you would be accused of plagarism, would be places like reporting, criticism, education or research goals make fair use arguments much easier.
- Maxatar 1y agoPlagiarism isn't illegal, has nothing to do with the law.
- JKCalhoun 1y agoMy understanding — LLMs are nothing at all like a "savant with perfect recall". More like a speed-reader who retains a schema-level grasp of what they’ve read.
- mr_toad 1y ago> If a savant has perfect recall AI don’t have perfect recall.
- wizee 1y agoIs reading and memorizing a copyrighted text a breach of copyright? I.e. is creating a copy of the text in your mind a breach of copyright or fair fair use? Is it a breach of copyright if a digital “mind” similarly memorizes copyrighted text? Or is it only a breach of copyright to output and publish that memorized text? What about loosely memorizing the gist of a copyrighted text. Is that a breach or fair use? What if a machine does something similar? This falls under a rather murky area of the law that is not well defined.
- aeonik 1y ago"Filthy eidetics. Their freeloading had become too much for our society to bear. Something had to be done. We found the mutation in their hippocampus and released a new CRISPR-mRNA-based gene suppression system. Those who were immune were put under the scalpel."
- nadermx 1y agoNot only does it read like a litany[0]. It seems like the copyright holders are not happy with how the meta case is working through court and are trying to sidestep fair use entirely. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
- mr_toad 1y agoCopywriter holders have always hated fair use, and often like to pretend it doesn’t exist. The average copywrite holder would like you to think that the law only allows use of their works in ways that they specifically permit, i.e. that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden. But the law is largely the reverse; it only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. That which is not specifically forbidden is permitted.
- ls612 1y agoThat used to be how it worked. Then the DMCA 1201 provisions arrived and so now anything not expressly permitted by the enumerated exceptions is forbidden. Even talking about how it works is punishable as a felony (upheld by SCOTUS in like 2000 or 2001, they basically said the Copyright clause is in the constitution so the government can censor information on how to defeat DRM).
- nadermx 1y agoBreaking DRM, is in fact, Fair Use: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-10521-CV0.wpd.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-10521-CV0.wp...
- whamlastxmas 1y ago[flagged]
- flyingcircus3 1y agoThe very fact that you can bring this tired retort to any argument regardless of context reveals it for what it is: an off ramp to any conversation you have no better argument against.
- dylan604 1y agoIt also assumes that the orange man has an original thought and not something that he's been convinced of by all of the direct underlings or even 3rd party NGOs that advise/lobby those underlings.
- 93po 1y agoPeople see actions and make assumptions on intentions behind those actions. They also make assumptions on who actually called for those actions, or the percent to which people contributed to those decisions. If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that tape. Which means any claims that this is what happening is entirely speculation. We've seen a decade of people claiming these assumptions as fact, and it's really tiresome.
- flyingcircus3 1y agoNow apply this reasoning to Trump standing in Air Force One and saying that he would bring someone back of the Supreme Court said to. It's on video.
- 93po 1y agoI spent 10+ minutes trying to find anything Trump has said on camera about the copyright office, and went through the only video I could find of Trump on air force one in the past week to see any references to this, and saw none.