4 ms·
A good argument. however to compare an AI model to a Xerox machine is reductive and not a sound metaphor... It can not be treated just as a Xerox machine, but
by altruios 1y ago
A good argument. however to compare an AI model to a Xerox machine is reductive and not a sound metaphor...
It can not be treated just as a Xerox machine, but it can be treated as a Xerox machine that has within it all the copywritten works (that a user can inventively request combinations there within) which it has trained on (and saved in the form of weights/bias). In this case the AI model itself is the distribution of works under copyright. Encrypting/transforming copywritten works and transmitting it is a violation of copyright (afaik; ianal).
This is all to say, copyright - as it stands - needs heavy reform. I'm rather copyleft. Because all of this is vestigial nonsense from an age where printers from the 1800's setting the rules, and our thinking hasn't updated yet.
- parpfish 1y agoWhat would happen if you made a lossy image compression format derived from tons of scraped, copyrighted images. There’s no generative ability, but anytime you compress/decompress your image the model uses weights and biases learned from copyrighted works. Is that a violation?
- altruios 1y agoNothing. and no: Only distributing it to others is when copyright is an issue. Private translations/transformations are unenforceable. You can mark up a book you've bought as much as you want. copyright makes no sense;