Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

heathermeeker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 705 posts

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#291

Post by croon »

RandomLensman wrote: post #272
usrbinbash wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is very different. Why is it different? The only difference that matters, is scale. And again, if I want to argue that something done 10000000000 times is legally problematic, I have to be prepared to explain why doing it 10 times is problematic as well, only less so.

Nothing new. People differentiate between genocide and murder, for example, or poisoning water supply vs an individual poisoning. Criminal law in quite a few places definitely has scale considerations.

You just gave two examples of where both ends of the scale are illegal, which only strengthens the argument of GP. IANAL, and I'm not stating anything about the reality of the judicial system, but only following the logic of the argument.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#292

Post by benced »

It’s interesting that we spent decades arguing against corporate IP control because it reduces the intellectual freedom of the human race but now that the corpus of data comes from everyday people instead of big companies (a direct effect of the internet democratizing the creation of content), people are suddenly pro IP control.

It shows that a lot of people in this space only cared about standing up against corporations, they didn’t care about the philosophy behind the anti-IP movement,

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#293

Post by cycomanic »

usrbinbash wrote: post #240
pavlov wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books?” I’m not able to read billions of books in less than an hour. Even if we agree that machine learning is like human learning, scale commonly matters in law.

> scale commonly matters in law I am not a lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. Scale matters, but so does the legality of the thing that scales. Reading two dozen books by other authors, or studying hundreds of artworks, or visiting the museum of awesome statues every week, in order to get inspired for ones own novel/painting/scuplture, isn't illegal. So a lawsuit will have a really hard time argueing that i…

However, AI learning is not the same as a person learning. The same way memorizing a book is not the same way as putting it into computer memory. Nobody would sue you for copyright infringement if you memorized a book, song or movie in your head. No the issue is a completely different matter if you made a copy on a harddrive.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#294

Post by est31 »

bamboozled wrote: post #118
adrianN wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is absolutely no comparison here, because children don't charge you to look at their artwork, if you ask nicely, they will probably give it to you for free. Companies using other peoples work without permission to train AI, will charge. 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.

There are plenty of competitors to the corporate AI models that are freely distributed, free to use, etc. You just need to have the hardware, which is admittedly pricey. The worst outcome is if there is a legal risk in creating AI models that only big companies with an army of lawyers large enough to fend off lawsuits can afford to face. Then you'd have the continuation of big tech controlling things for "responsibility" reasons instead of AI being a technology anybody can use.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#295

Post by ben_w »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #245
ben_w wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The training set for GPT-3 is about 500e9 tokens; any given synapse in a human in their lifetime is going to fire about 2e9s * (10% * {100Hz to 1000Hz}) = 20e9 to 200e9 times.

It sounds like you agree with them, since there are a lot of synapses.

Au contraire.

While our brains are more complex than the networks, this has never been in dispute.

The quantity of experiences needed to train GPT-3, however, is many more than we are capable of experiencing in a lifetime.

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#296

Post by neovialogistics »

Panoramix wrote: post #281
happymellon wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets called plagiarism, and there are lots of lawsuits preventing this.

It's not plagiarism at all. The AI is trained on 5 billion images yet it stores only 4gb of data. Thus it is impossible that it stores the actual work. For any image that the AI generates, you can't point to any image in the training data that the image is derived from.

Who's to say that GPT isn't just analogous, legally, to lossy compression algorithms, only with a particularly interesting interpretation of "lossy"?

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#297

Post by _Algernon_ »

atmosx wrote: post #248
kirse wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies can ask for permission if they want to train their models on other people's works Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? Do you ask for permission when you get new ideas from HN that aren't your own? Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of "copyrighted" insights that they eventually remix into their own creations without necessar…

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? I pay the books directly (cash, credit) or indirectly (school books via taxes). I do pay the louvre to observe the painting. I also pay to listen music in ads (YouTube) or via subscription (YT Music and Spotify).

Rephrasing of the question: If you put you eyes on a single pirated work in your lifetime, all future potential creations are potentially inspired by that experience. Is every future creation of a human who has put their eyes on a pirated work copyright infringement?

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#298

Post by cycomanic »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #230
fsckboy wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for sending your strawman in to do battle with his strawman. you don't need permission to train on books, but you do need to buy the books or take them from the library one at a time. "training" these machines so far is not like human learning as becomes apparent when they spit out source code that mirrors individual repositories. And you know that humans are required to both remix their own creations and foll…

> when they spit out source code that mirrors individual repositories That's not a problem, we already have copyright laws that prevent people from distributing mirrors of copyrighted works. They don't care about how the works were copied.

So you are saying we should prosecute MS because co-pilot is distributing the copyrighted work? Or in other words why is co-pilot spitting out the code to someone else (often with copyright notices removed), not code distribution?

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#299

Post by i_like_apis »

pavlov wrote: post #153
kirse wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies can ask for permission if they want to train their models on other people's works Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? Do you ask for permission when you get new ideas from HN that aren't your own? Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of "copyrighted" insights that they eventually remix into their own creations without necessar…

> “Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books?” I’m not able to read billions of books in less than an hour. Even if we agree that machine learning is like human learning, scale commonly matters in law.

Is this about jealousy then?

Or it’s just too fast so let’s stop it?

Re: AI is in danger of being swallowed up by copyright law

#300

Post by i_like_apis »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #242
visarga wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently worked on information extraction from 10K documents. GPT-3 needs about 7 days of operation in batch mode on one thread. It takes 40..70s to read one single document and report the extracted data. One MINUTE per page. But I think you meant GPT-3 has seen many books during training, not during inference. You should know that training on millions of books is not the only way GPT-3 learns. It is just the found…

Your reply is mostly a red herring because as you yourself said, the OP was talking about regular training data, not the ICL you focused on. Just because you can find one way that GPT might be slow doesn't invalidate the point that its training does use massive amounts of data.

So what if it does?
Post reply on HN