111–120 of 705 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is not human children.
I can instruct an AI to draw Mickey Mouse and infringe copyright and I can instruct a child to draw Mickey Mouse and infringe copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very curious that so many people adopted this position exactly when it became feasible for giant corporations to profit by mass producing laundered copyrighted works!
Those wanting AI to respect copyright are going to find that the big players will navigate copyright just fine. It's the small players that won't. They're advocating for institutional control over AI.
> 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? Ho…
> how about people running AI only feed them information that they legally have the right to use? That's what they did! It was in fair use. So yes, they did have the right to legally train the data on copyrighted images.
Many artists don't believe this and the law is very much unclear.
In many cases the AI generated work literally looks like a clone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
De minimis is a longstanding defense in copyright law. If you are copying very little from very many works, as is the case when you turn multiple petabytes into a few gigabytes of neural network weights, you are in the clear. The problem arises when models overfit and spit out almost perfect copies of the training data.
Copyright doesn't have an explicit size, but rather uses size as one of many indicators. For example, I could take a massive 8k video and covert it into a very small 144p youtube video. Am I in the clear simply because the output is tiny compared to the input? Similar I could take a huge studio master copy of a song and convert it to a very small and rather compressed (distorted) mp3. I partially agree that some of t…
"Transformative Use" is a major consideration in fair use copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use
ML models do not supplant the pre-existing work, and provide fundamentally new modalities. Transformative use seems like a slam dunk to me, but I guess we'll see what the Supremes decide in twenty years or so...
If you draw a cat then you need to pay authors of every cat drawing you ever saw. Also all the owners of actual cats you saw. It's only fair.
You cannot then use this copy commercially while pretending this indirection somehow grants you immunity from copyright laws.
The fact that AI is involved does not change the basic principle.
There's no part of AI that is being swallowed up by copyright. AI companies can ask for permission if they want to train their models on other people's works. It's not that hard, various image hosting sites have already added an opt-in/opt-out toggle to their services. Sites might even get away with using this stuff as compensation for free hosting. The fact of the matter is that the AI companies don't want to ask fo…
It’s also worrying that requiring consent to train an AI model will inevitably lead to requiring consent to make handmade art that’s a little too similar to some other existing artwork (ie, how all art works through reference, training, and inspiration). A world where Getty and Disney control even more than they already do.
i do not defend copilot for training on private repositories. or ignoring licenses. but, to me, there is a big flaw in these lawsuits. if we need to shut down these AI technologies, then our entire education field is in danger. the same arguments should apply to our education field. educating AI is the same as educating ourselves.
> 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? Ho…
As an extension of this, only allow children to look at works they purchased publication rights to, lest their creative output becomes influenced by a different person's style.
Your suggestion would be accurate if we lived in a world where we all shared, and there was no money, and copyright didn't exist, but we don't.
maybe one country or another will outlaw generative ai or ai art or media synthesis or whatever it ends up being called, but presumably they'll be left behind by rapid cultural and technical development in whatever countries don't the cat is out of the bag, the worms are out of the can, the feathers have blown away in the wind these developments seem very likely to be central to programming, all other kinds of engine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't want anybody to feed any of my work into a model at all without following all the terms of the licenses of my work. If my work is used to generate, via a computer program, a derived output, then you need to follow my licenses. People keep pretending that AI is the exact same thing as a human learning, but it's really a lot more like a fancy compiler with highly non-deterministic output. AI is not a human.