201–210 of 705 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very interesting! This would give Japan a real competitive productivity advantage if ML tools are banned or severely hampered elsewhere. It would also mean that other countries would need to ban not just scraping but also the resulting code or AI-generated media.
I'm sure chatgpt would be of much less interest worldwide if it only spoke japanese.
Copyright law has its limitations. But it also has a long history of being applied and interpreted that you can't just wish away. New legal interpretations have to be reconciled with that. So, any radical changes in that are not very likely to happen. Nor will politicians step up and change the law. First of all, few of them actually care or even understand most of this stuff. And secondly, they have plenty of other distractions and a worse attention span than a toddler. Mostly they just do what big companies tell them to do.
So, the most likely outcome here is that these cases won't get very far. At best it might drag on for a few years while nothing really changes. During that time, AI will continue to develop and will get more embedded in society.
And lets face it, this is not Oracle with really deep pockets unleashing an army of lawyers against the likes of Google but some isolated individuals. As legal cost ramps up, their enthusiasm might suffer a bit. Especially if they start losing cases.
> Like a cruise ship heading for a scary iceberg, AI is in trouble, and the problems are mostly below the surface. I'm not sure why the author is out here talking like a lawsuit brought by the author of Typography For Lawyers is going to bring down Microsoft like it's a foregone conclusion, but people are going to be training models on public data for personal gain from here out no matter what happens. The cat is out…
Yes, so this mumbo jumbo scaremongering about how poor AI researchers won’t be able to make the world a better place isn’t remotely accurate. If copyright ends up being enforced, it’ll affect commercial deployment. We’re in for an inevitable paradigm shift soon anyway, so if we need any guardrails, we better install them before we open the floodgates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So has the EU as part of the digital single market changes in 2019 (The so-called Text and Data mining exceptions)
Not really. Well they allow mining the data but nothing is said about the copyright of the collage output.
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.
AI is not human. Machine learning isn't the exact same thing as human learning. Treating them as exactly the same is disingenuous.
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.
Only 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?
So you should know and list all of the authors that contributed to that code being generated.
And that's the least restrictive software license…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I am saying. Stop doing that. Train co-pilot, or whatever, to follow the terms of the license.
That's tough when Jimmy is using copilot to generate code for his proprietary company codebase. AI is just a tool, do you also sue the company that sold the paintbrush with which an infringing painting was made?
However they don't give you any way of NOT infringing when using their tool.
There's a famous Carl Sagan quote: “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe” which hints at the problem: Nothing is created in a vacuum.
Let's compare what Stable Diffusion does with what Franz von Holzhausen, head of design at Tesla, does. Franz didn't come into existence out of nothing and knew how to design cars. Instead he studied transportation design and worked at Volkswagen, General Motors and Mazda before joining Tesla. All these steps trained his (actual) neural network with inputs from copyrighted car designs.
Based on these inputs he was able to create the designs for the Model S, Model 3, Model X and others. Does this mean that Mazda can now levy a copyright lawsuit against Tesla? It could, based on the reasoning employed in some of the Stable Diffusion suits, but it won't based on the lack of similarity between the cars of both brands.
I believe that the law around AI will come to a similar conclusion. AI learning is neither fundamentally add odds with copyrighted material, nor confirming it. It will be a matter of degrees of derivation - how different is the output of the AI from its copyrighted inputs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human nature. We haven't changed that much in the past 50k years or so. Some people are very altruistic and giving, others not so much. An artist might club you over the head for stealing his techniques and ideas and copying them into a new portion of the cave or rock wall, others would have taught you and approved of your work.
thats not the case. almost all human works ever was not even attributed to the author. Nobody considered copyright when they recited Homer or published reprinted manuals until 1700 the concept is very new
Really? Curious that we know the author's name then… seems like… attribution?