3 ms·

> Because the existing laws about theft and copyright don't cover "learning from billions of examples and interpolating or extrapolating from them". Here are t

> Because the existing laws about theft and copyright don't cover "learning from billions of examples and interpolating or extrapolating from them". Here are the UK exceptions to copyright. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright Note how there is an exception for automatic processing - but only for non-commerial use and note the researchers still have to pay for access. There is also a 'fair dealing' clause. The key clause here is: "does using the work affect the market for the original work?" Content creators are strongly asserting that what these tech companies is doing does. Also "s the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used" Obviously the entire works are being consumed. > Because the existing laws about theft and copyright don't cover "learning from billions of examples and interpolating or extrapolating from them". Laws are written in a way where they attempt to predict the future - they are written from a first pirnciples approach - such as the fair dealing clause above - so your claim that it doesn't explicitly ban it is a red herring.

xscott 1y ago
> Here are the UK exceptions to copyright. I assumed you were in the US, where companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic are located. If they're breaking UK laws, you should appeal to your government to enforce those laws in your territory, or ban access to them, or whatever you think is relevant. > [...] so your claim that it doesn't explicitly ban it is a red herring. Why should I care about your laws any more than any other country I don't live in?
- DrScientist 1y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is the ways the laws are structured leaves them open to interpretation - and that's deliberate because trying to nail down everything up front is bound to fail and will allow people to evade the spirit of the law. ie what matters - both in interpreting todays laws and if they are insufficiently clear, drafting future amendments - is why the law was created in the first place. The UK law is well drafted and makes it very clear that the aim of copyright is not to stop you copying something per se - but to copying something for commercial gain that is simultaneously damages the copyright owner. I suspect those principals are the same the world over - whatever the exact drafting. So the question you have to address is do the actions of the AI companies fit these critieria. Are they copying copyright material without permission - tick. Are they making money as a result ( it's a commercial operation ) - tick. Are they damaging the original copyright holders in the process - this is the only one remotely in doubt - but I'd argue it's pretty clearly a tick in many areas - bit bit less clear in others. In terms of lobbying - it's the big tech companies that are currently trying to get the law changed in the UK - to make what they have done legal ( while stil arguing they haven't done anything wrong..... as laws are not typically changed retrospectively ).
  - xscott 1y ago
    > The UK law is well drafted [...] From what I read, I agree. However, UK law isn't very relevant to the matter. It's a small market among many that doesn't create the models or much of the content to train them.
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      Perhaps - though the UK punches above it's weight in UK English language cultural output - I'm sure you have come across some of it. By the way, once the UK ruled large part of the world - including the US - but that empire wasn't sustainable for a small country as the other countries caught up in terms of development. The US is currently facing that issue, and I have to say, not dealing with it very well. The US is going to need friends on the way down and right now all it's doing is making enemies.
      - xscott 1y ago
        Yeah, the US is doing some terribly stupid stuff. No disagreement there. However, the UK might be more relevant if you hadn't withdrawn from the EU. From the outside it sure looks like you guys decided it was more important to keep out the poor people (or other ethnic backgrounds) than to be part of something with actual collective bargaining power.
        DrScientist 1y ago
        The debate about leaving the EU was multi-faceted [1] - but a significant part was a kind of nostalgia for when Britain was indeed Great, and the idea that a UK free from the shackles of the EU could be great again. Take back control was the slogan - a complete misunderstanding of the difference between lost sovereignty and pooled sovereignty. I see the same forces driving the US now as it undermines international organisations. [1] and sure xenophobia played a depressingly large part.
        xscott 1y ago

xscott 1y ago

> Here are the UK exceptions to copyright. I assumed you were in the US, where companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic are located. If they're breaking UK laws, you should appeal to your government to enforce those laws in your territory, or ban access to them, or whatever you think is relevant. > [...] so your claim that it doesn't explicitly ban it is a red herring. Why should I care about your laws any more than any other country I don't live in?

DrScientist 1y ago
The point I'm trying to make is the ways the laws are structured leaves them open to interpretation - and that's deliberate because trying to nail down everything up front is bound to fail and will allow people to evade the spirit of the law. ie what matters - both in interpreting todays laws and if they are insufficiently clear, drafting future amendments - is why the law was created in the first place. The UK law is well drafted and makes it very clear that the aim of copyright is not to stop you copying something per se - but to copying something for commercial gain that is simultaneously damages the copyright owner. I suspect those principals are the same the world over - whatever the exact drafting. So the question you have to address is do the actions of the AI companies fit these critieria. Are they copying copyright material without permission - tick. Are they making money as a result ( it's a commercial operation ) - tick. Are they damaging the original copyright holders in the process - this is the only one remotely in doubt - but I'd argue it's pretty clearly a tick in many areas - bit bit less clear in others. In terms of lobbying - it's the big tech companies that are currently trying to get the law changed in the UK - to make what they have done legal ( while stil arguing they haven't done anything wrong..... as laws are not typically changed retrospectively ).
- xscott 1y ago
  > The UK law is well drafted [...] From what I read, I agree. However, UK law isn't very relevant to the matter. It's a small market among many that doesn't create the models or much of the content to train them.
  - DrScientist 1y ago
    Perhaps - though the UK punches above it's weight in UK English language cultural output - I'm sure you have come across some of it. By the way, once the UK ruled large part of the world - including the US - but that empire wasn't sustainable for a small country as the other countries caught up in terms of development. The US is currently facing that issue, and I have to say, not dealing with it very well. The US is going to need friends on the way down and right now all it's doing is making enemies.
    - xscott 1y ago
      Yeah, the US is doing some terribly stupid stuff. No disagreement there. However, the UK might be more relevant if you hadn't withdrawn from the EU. From the outside it sure looks like you guys decided it was more important to keep out the poor people (or other ethnic backgrounds) than to be part of something with actual collective bargaining power.
      - DrScientist 1y ago
        The debate about leaving the EU was multi-faceted [1] - but a significant part was a kind of nostalgia for when Britain was indeed Great, and the idea that a UK free from the shackles of the EU could be great again. Take back control was the slogan - a complete misunderstanding of the difference between lost sovereignty and pooled sovereignty. I see the same forces driving the US now as it undermines international organisations. [1] and sure xenophobia played a depressingly large part.
        xscott 1y ago