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

311–320 of 705 posts

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

#311

Post by manholio »

i_like_apis wrote: post #299
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.

Is this about jealousy then? Or it’s just too fast so let’s stop it?

It's about a law designed by humans to give everyone a chance to make a living and contribute to the common good. You think you have found a loophole in that law that lets you use that work for free and deny author's any compensation.

Bear in mind, AI is not making artists or creative types obsolete - that would be fair game, just like computers made human calculators obsolete. No, this is about abusing other people's work.

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

#312

Post by _Algernon_ »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #303
_Algernon_ wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you pirate a book, learn from it and then create something using the information you learned, would that creation constitute copyright infringement? If so how far does the tainting go? Once you put your eyes on something which you haven't purchased, all future works could potentially be inspired by that experience and should therefore be considered infringement, following your logic.

The AI doesn’t understand what it consumes. That is why the models still can’t add two numbers.

What's the difference between acting as if it actually understands and "true understanding". I'd argue there is none, or at least that it doesn't matter. For instance there is nothing you could do to prove to me that you aren't just a black box acting on input in a sophisticated manner (eg. chinese room argument[1]), yet I give you the benefit of the doubt. GPT's lack of understanding of math may be a localized lack of understanding where it does "understand" other topics. I don't require you to display an understanding of quantum physics in order to prove that you're able to understand anything at all.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

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

#313

Post by taylorius »

pvaldes wrote: post #279
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? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? The difference is that I buy books, pay for visiting museums and buy music in several formats, or pay it accepting to receive advertisement between songs. It Is expected that If I buy a book I will be allowed to read it without asking for a permission. What I don't do is copypasting paragraphs of other…

Presumably AI trainers aren't hacking into Amazon's servers to steal their copyrighted ebook files. All the data they use are publicly available to view by the AI, just as a human might view them. So I don't think your distinction is accurate. It think the question is to what degree are AI systems "inspired" by the content they are trained on, versus merely regurgitating it - to be honest, it's hard to draw a line between the two for people's creative work, never mind those of machines.

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

#314

Post by b112 »

i_like_apis wrote: post #308
cycomanic wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning. ML can do either facsimile or imitation far better than a human mind can. You seem to be conflating both things and suggesting that ML only does facsimile, which is where the potential legal problems are.

It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning

No, it is not. Memorization =! understanding.

I can teach a parrot to spew the times table, good luck getting it to understand how to apply it.

And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos.

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

#315

Post by belorn »

kirse wrote: post #121
jeroenhd wrote: post #105

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…

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…

It could be time to give AI human-like rights. Human passports, human rights, 8 hour work schedule, weekends off, vacation time, and of course workers wages.

If an AI reproduce a copyrighted work they should then be sent to robot jail, and the human who requested the work should be sentenced for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.

It might however be a bit early to let the horse back in the barn.

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

#316

Post by MikusR »

thewanderer1983 wrote: post #191
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…

This is the uncomfortable truth that no one on that side of the argument wants to address. Also, the fact that Artistic Freedom is now under attack by artists. Not that long ago Artists hated the Music Industry and Corporations such as Disney for weaponizing Copyright law against Artistic Freedom. Now artists are utilizing that same tactic against other artists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_freedom

It's just humans being humans. Some years ago microsoft was using FUD against Linux. Now linux users are using FUD against microsoft.

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

#317

Post by barnabee »

benced wrote: post #292

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 corporat…

I’m very against IP laws and controls in pretty much all their forms.

I think if we tried to calculate the cost to humanity of the things that don’t happen or aren’t created, are very expensive to do, or are restricted to people and companies with the right “rights” we’d uncover a tremendous tragedy.

In addition to the first order effects (you can’t do X or have to pay to do Y), there are huge chilling effects on uses that are allowed (especially as companies regularly overplay their hand well beyond the protections they are actually afforded), and the cost of technology and people that exist only to enforce these rules.

We should embrace the free sharing of information and maximisation of its value for all of humanity.

If we worry about researchers, programmers, and artists not getting paid (and we should!) then we ought to pay them as a society for the public goods they create (as we partly do for science and research). Finding and implementing a good and democratically reasonable way to do this would be truly revolutionary.

I hope that AI research and training only goes to prove the long term damage and futility of IP as a concept and accelerate its downfall.

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

#318

Post by RandomLensman »

kirse wrote: post #121
jeroenhd wrote: post #105

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…

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…

If machines were totally free to harvest all human work and expression for their owners' benefit, why should anyone ever allow any of their work out in open unless strictly necessary?

Why go down the route of turbocharging new forms of rent seeking?

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

#319

Post by jwildeboer »

The interesting thing is how Heather Meeker carefully avoids mentioning the obvious approach that is perfectly compliant with laws and regulations around copyright and use: opt-in. If a new way of using information arises, asking for consent through opt-in is the obvious choice. But also the most costly one.

That's why the "forgiveness instead of permission" approach is seen as somehow heroic, when it actually simply is abuse.

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

#320

Post by m1sta_ »

kirse wrote: post #121
jeroenhd wrote: post #105

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…

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…

Your mind is not infinitely scalable. It's a factor. Your mind is able to be recognised an author under copyright law. The AI model is not. It's a factor.
Post reply on HN