[deleted]
AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
41–50 of 705 posts
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#42I have no clues about laws and stuff and as a software engineer, I'd say please replace me by machines i dont care all the contrary, let's go. But please, please, protect art making from machines. These paints made in those caves werent done during work hours, it was probably the first forms of leasure our ancestors experienced. The first forms of enjoyment in the rude life of early humans. I think there is some high…
[deleted]
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#43Or is AI eating Copyright?
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#44> [...] and also, for software authors, prohibiting ML training would be antithetical to the Open Source Definition. So that probably won’t work.
Of course. As an author of OSS, I'm more than happy to let your AI "learn" from my code as long as the trained model is released under a GPL compatible license.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#45> But other than netting a hefty fee for the lawyers who bring the suit, what is the endgame, exactly? Pay people whose works you want to extract value from, it is that easy… Unless the whole point of this "AI" bubble is to create monetary value for the companies and their shareholders without being held accountable. I do not mean that creating, configuring, tuning a model, or even compiling a massive dataset is not…
Trying to legislate model training is impossible and stupid. At worst some copyright holders will sue a company because a model is biased and produces close-enough replicas of something under copyright. Model builders will respond by penalizing models that reproduce copyright images too closely, and better curating data sets to avoid bias, at which point the issue will be moot.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#46Only speaking to the coding situation. It seems to me that if the "LLM Copilots" just observed the existing license there would be less of a problem here. Copilot, only recommend work based on $LICENSE or $LICENSE compatible license when I am working on $LICENSE code. What's the problem genius?
That only addresses part of the problem. Open source depends upon copyright in order to be enforceable. Copyright depends upon attribution. While I am confident that most (not all) open source authors would be happy if the license remains intact, what happens when someone infringes upon an open source license? Say that someone incorporates code generated by an AI based upon open source licenses into a closed source p…
That's what I am saying. Stop doing that. Train co-pilot, or whatever, to follow the terms of the license.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#47> But the latest and greatest software trend–generative AI–is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law. About time. > If the AI industry is to survive, we need a clear legal rule that neural networks, and the outputs they produce, are not presumed to be copies of the data used to train them. But they are compressed lossy copies of all that data! That's the whole point of noise/denoise functions that neural ne…
> But they are compressed lossy copies of all that data So are those you are storing in your mind... (Edit: i.e., "learning is not a violation". Also see below.)
Well, if you copied a famous piece of art from memory... That'd be a copyright violation.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#48> But other than netting a hefty fee for the lawyers who bring the suit, what is the endgame, exactly? Pay people whose works you want to extract value from, it is that easy… Unless the whole point of this "AI" bubble is to create monetary value for the companies and their shareholders without being held accountable. I do not mean that creating, configuring, tuning a model, or even compiling a massive dataset is not…
Apparently AI already passes US medical exams. I guess it deserves to be beaten into the ground by estabilished copyright behemoths and lawyers.
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#49> If the AI industry is to survive, we need a clear legal rule that neural networks, and the outputs they produce, are not presumed to be copies of the data used to train them. Otherwise, the entire industry will be plagued with lawsuits that will stifle innovation and only enrich plaintiff’s lawyers
Or maybe, get this, how about people running AI only feed them information that they legally have the right to use? How is it a bad thing that somebody can't legally steal other peoples' work without their permission because of pesky copyright?
Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law
#50> But the latest and greatest software trend–generative AI–is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law. About time. > If the AI industry is to survive, we need a clear legal rule that neural networks, and the outputs they produce, are not presumed to be copies of the data used to train them. But they are compressed lossy copies of all that data! That's the whole point of noise/denoise functions that neural ne…
> But they are compressed lossy copies of all that data!
Sounds similar to, for instance, songs written by people who have heard other songs. I wouldn’t expect legal cases concerning AI-generated works to be any simpler than legal cases concerning the difference between a songwriter violating the IP of another songwriter or simply being inspired by another song.