5 ms·

Even "plagiarism" is putting way to positive a spin on it. "Rampant copyright infringement" is more accurate. I'm sure we all have our own feelings about IP la

Even "plagiarism" is putting way to positive a spin on it. "Rampant copyright infringement" is more accurate. I'm sure we all have our own feelings about IP law, but remember what happens to regular people who try stuff like this. I don't think the RIAA, Disney, or Nintendo (or the government) are going to be pleased to hear "it's not piracy! It's a transformative experience protected by fair use!"

steveBK123 1y ago
Millenials might be the generation that both got threatened with jail for music copyright infringement violations as youth AND gets to have their job threatened by automated mass corporate copyright infringement in adulthood!
- hnthrow90348765 1y ago
  "Haha, yeah, those scrappy Millennials - who knows where their breaking point is but I'm sure there's a fintech app for making that bet"
- svaha1728 1y ago
  We wanted Aaron Swartz and we got Sam Altman.
  - azemetre 1y ago
    Truly the darkest timeline.
rrauenza 1y ago
I had this argument presented to me and I wasn't sure what to do with it. > Humans are allowed to "absorb" art around them into their brains and generate derivative art. People may copy Miyazaki's style... why shouldn't an AI farm be allowed to? Let's put aside for a moment that AI may have "consumed" some art without a license (e.g., "google books" - did google purchase every book?).
- NooneAtAll3 1y ago
  except lawyers keep saying "fanart is actually technically illegal" and resinging/changing lyrics in songs isn't enough to be protected by "fair use" stuff if anything, I'd campaign for "we should limit copyright because it already doesn't work for Ai"
  - rrauenza 1y ago
    I wasn't intending to include fan art. Copying Miyazaki's style ... or copying Monet's style... those aren't fan art.
    - thiht 1y ago
      Why not? I’m a fan of X and make art in the style of X using the tools at my disposal (AI). Why is that not fanart?
      - rrauenza 1y ago
        They are. I meant the subset of fan art of the infringing type where you make fan art of, say, Mickey Mouse and sell stickers.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > People may copy Miyazaki's style... why shouldn't an AI farm be allowed to? People may take a penny from the tray at the 7-11, so why can't an AI farm take pennies from all the trays? Or take them from a much bigger tray and do it a couple of million times?
- davidclark 1y ago
  The same legal rule applies to both for determining whether something is a derivative work. No one is stopping you from using similar proportions or colors as Miyazaki to draw a character. You are also allowed to draw your own interpretation of an electric mouse-like monster. Copyright infringement occurs if that character looks exactly like say Totoro or Pikachu. That is not “in the style of”, that is copying. A problem with LLMs is that since their corpus is so large, it is difficult to identify when any given output is crossing that line because a single observer’s knowledge of the works influencing the output is limited. You might feed it a picture of your grandfather and it returns an almost exact copy of a grandfather character from a Miyazaki film you haven’t seen. If you don’t share the output with others, it might never be noticed that the infringement occurred. The given argument conflates the slightest influence with direct copying. It is a reductive take that, personally, I’ve found emblematic of pro-LLM arguments.
jaoane 1y ago
[flagged]
- xnickb 1y ago
  Scale matters. I might miss the context though. Happy to be corrected
SilasX 1y ago
Learning from copyrighted works to create new ones has never been protected by copyright[1], and has never needed separate licensing rights. Until 2022, no one even suggested it, to a rounding error. If anything, people would have been horrified at the idea of being dinged because your novel clearly drew inspiration from another work. That narrative only got picked up because people needed a reason to demonize evil corps that they already hated for unrelated reasons. [1] Yes, if you create "new" works from your learning that are basically copies, that has always been infringement. I'm talking about the general case.
- username135 1y ago
  Its hard not to demonize large corps that often enjoy the governments legal largess when there are many examples of individuals with ruined lives for the same behavior.
- satyanash 1y ago
  > narrative only got picked up because people needed a reason to demonize evil corps Either they aren't evil in which case they're being demonized, or they're already evil in which case demonization is redundant. Keeping aside the motives of people, what is clear is that scale effects of AI cannot be ignored. An AI "learning" millions of pieces of content in a short span is not the same as humans spending time, effort and energy to replicate someone's style. You can argue that its 'neural nets' in both cases, but the massive scale is what separates the two. A village is not a large family, a city is not a large village, ... and all that.
  - SilasX 1y ago
    >Either they aren't evil in which case they're being demonized, or they're already evil in which case demonization is redundant. If you were trying to be charitable rather than clever, you would have read "evil corps" as "corps that the critic regards as evil". >Keeping aside the motives of people, what is clear is that scale effects of AI cannot be ignored. Okay, so just give some kind of standard -- any clear, articulable standard -- for how and why the scale matters. It's a cop-out to just rest your case on a hand-wavy "it changes at scale".
gojomo 1y ago
There is no de jure legal requirement that the RIAA, Disney, Nintendo, or the government be "pleased to hear" about new technology. And, while copyright prohibits some sorts of reproduction of copyrighted materials, it doesn't give rightsholders veto power over all downstream uses of legal copies.

steveBK123 1y ago

Millenials might be the generation that both got threatened with jail for music copyright infringement violations as youth AND gets to have their job threatened by automated mass corporate copyright infringement in adulthood!

hnthrow90348765 1y ago
"Haha, yeah, those scrappy Millennials - who knows where their breaking point is but I'm sure there's a fintech app for making that bet"
svaha1728 1y ago
We wanted Aaron Swartz and we got Sam Altman.
- azemetre 1y ago
  Truly the darkest timeline.

rrauenza 1y ago

I had this argument presented to me and I wasn't sure what to do with it. > Humans are allowed to "absorb" art around them into their brains and generate derivative art. People may copy Miyazaki's style... why shouldn't an AI farm be allowed to? Let's put aside for a moment that AI may have "consumed" some art without a license (e.g., "google books" - did google purchase every book?).

NooneAtAll3 1y ago
except lawyers keep saying "fanart is actually technically illegal" and resinging/changing lyrics in songs isn't enough to be protected by "fair use" stuff if anything, I'd campaign for "we should limit copyright because it already doesn't work for Ai"
- rrauenza 1y ago
  I wasn't intending to include fan art. Copying Miyazaki's style ... or copying Monet's style... those aren't fan art.
  - thiht 1y ago
    Why not? I’m a fan of X and make art in the style of X using the tools at my disposal (AI). Why is that not fanart?
    - rrauenza 1y ago
      They are. I meant the subset of fan art of the infringing type where you make fan art of, say, Mickey Mouse and sell stickers.
mcphage 1y ago
> People may copy Miyazaki's style... why shouldn't an AI farm be allowed to? People may take a penny from the tray at the 7-11, so why can't an AI farm take pennies from all the trays? Or take them from a much bigger tray and do it a couple of million times?
davidclark 1y ago
The same legal rule applies to both for determining whether something is a derivative work. No one is stopping you from using similar proportions or colors as Miyazaki to draw a character. You are also allowed to draw your own interpretation of an electric mouse-like monster. Copyright infringement occurs if that character looks exactly like say Totoro or Pikachu. That is not “in the style of”, that is copying. A problem with LLMs is that since their corpus is so large, it is difficult to identify when any given output is crossing that line because a single observer’s knowledge of the works influencing the output is limited. You might feed it a picture of your grandfather and it returns an almost exact copy of a grandfather character from a Miyazaki film you haven’t seen. If you don’t share the output with others, it might never be noticed that the infringement occurred. The given argument conflates the slightest influence with direct copying. It is a reductive take that, personally, I’ve found emblematic of pro-LLM arguments.

jaoane 1y ago

[flagged]

xnickb 1y ago
Scale matters. I might miss the context though. Happy to be corrected

SilasX 1y ago

Learning from copyrighted works to create new ones has never been protected by copyright[1], and has never needed separate licensing rights. Until 2022, no one even suggested it, to a rounding error. If anything, people would have been horrified at the idea of being dinged because your novel clearly drew inspiration from another work. That narrative only got picked up because people needed a reason to demonize evil corps that they already hated for unrelated reasons. [1] Yes, if you create "new" works from your learning that are basically copies, that has always been infringement. I'm talking about the general case.

username135 1y ago
Its hard not to demonize large corps that often enjoy the governments legal largess when there are many examples of individuals with ruined lives for the same behavior.
satyanash 1y ago
> narrative only got picked up because people needed a reason to demonize evil corps Either they aren't evil in which case they're being demonized, or they're already evil in which case demonization is redundant. Keeping aside the motives of people, what is clear is that scale effects of AI cannot be ignored. An AI "learning" millions of pieces of content in a short span is not the same as humans spending time, effort and energy to replicate someone's style. You can argue that its 'neural nets' in both cases, but the massive scale is what separates the two. A village is not a large family, a city is not a large village, ... and all that.
- SilasX 1y ago
  >Either they aren't evil in which case they're being demonized, or they're already evil in which case demonization is redundant. If you were trying to be charitable rather than clever, you would have read "evil corps" as "corps that the critic regards as evil". >Keeping aside the motives of people, what is clear is that scale effects of AI cannot be ignored. Okay, so just give some kind of standard -- any clear, articulable standard -- for how and why the scale matters. It's a cop-out to just rest your case on a hand-wavy "it changes at scale".

gojomo 1y ago

There is no de jure legal requirement that the RIAA, Disney, Nintendo, or the government be "pleased to hear" about new technology. And, while copyright prohibits some sorts of reproduction of copyrighted materials, it doesn't give rightsholders veto power over all downstream uses of legal copies.