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

541–550 of 705 posts

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

#541

Post by avgcorrection »

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…

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books?

AI is not a mind. It’s a program. We might call it a “mind” as a metaphor, but it’s not really one.

So any justification which presupposes that an AI should be able to do something (really: that the people who are running the AI programs should be able do something) because they are a “mind” is fallacious and doesn’t need to be interrogated.

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

#542

Post by nickthegreek »

SonicTheSith wrote: post #397
i_like_apis wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This “ML learning is not like human learning” fallacy is all over the place lately. It’s stupid, and it should stop. Humans are capable of both facsimile and imitation. The fact that ML is able to perform facsimile far better than a human can is not evidence that this is “not the same” learning. Only that ML learning is superior . ML is far superior in feats of both imitation and facsimile.

Are you high? How is ML learning superior to human learning? If I show a 3 year old a single picture of a Tiger, and tell him this is a tiger, the child is able to recognize a Tiger fairly accurate in real life without further input. Though the child might say that a house cat is tiger,,,, ML learning needs millions of pictures to do the same, and still might mistake an elephant for a tiger... ML is nothing more than…

There is no reason to accuse others of being on drugs because you fail to view the world in the same light as them. You can make your point known without doing so.

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

#543

Post by owlbite »

tehcheat418 wrote: post #151
owlbite wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't be trivially copy/pasted and replicated at scale.

Does that mean once you can be there is no ethical responsibility not to?

Not sure where you're going with that question.

Fundamentally the current accommodation of copyright has two main justifications: 1) Protect economic activity 2) Moral right to identify original author of a work

The point of ease of replication speaks to (1) fundamentally breaking. A human can only produce so much output compared to an AI system.

(2) is a much thornier subject, and not one I really feel qualified to speak on.

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

#544

Post by zajio1am »

metacritic12 wrote: post #394
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…

Regardless of whether one agrees or not with paying creators of the training data, I think the deeper issue here is about societal wealth distribution and who gets paid for X now that X is being done very well by AIs. A less equitable world has Google or billionaires getting paid. A more equitable world has the artists. But I want to argue here that for purposes of this latter question, your proposal of copyright enf…

> A less equitable world has Google or billionaires getting paid. A more equitable world has the artists.

Less equitable world has artists getting paid, in more equitable world, everyone can just use open-source AI tools like Stable Diffusion.

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

#545

Post by nhchris »

snickerbockers wrote: post #171

I'd be far more amenable to corporations training their AI on my content of those exact same corporations hadn't spent the last two decades aggressively defending their own IP with DRM and multi-million dollar lawsuits. So they can go fuck themselves, or alternatively they can make their super advanced AI reproduce my copyright statement and license every time it copies my code. Which shouldn't be difficult at all.

Your stance, if it becomes law, guarantees that only the giant corporations you hate will be able to negotiate licenses to train their AI. It guarantees that libre AI tools will be left far behind.

Is that what you want?

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

#546

Post by lelanthran »

kragen wrote: post #473
lelanthran wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it really turns out to be a problem then copyright holders are simply going to add in a not-licensed-for-training clause in all their licenses[1]. Sure, existing works already licensed can still be used, but at least both parties (copyright holders and AI trainers) won't have anything to argue about. [1] Anyone from CC reading this? Make it the default.

that isn't how law works copyright is not a get-into-jail-free card that allows private parties to invent their own legal system and nonconsensually impose it on other private parties

It's not nonconsensual, if you want to use copyrighted content, or consume it in any way, you have to abide the the clauses in the license.

Forbidding certain uses is a particularly common clause in most copyrighted material.

Other than some FLOSS licenses, can you find one that doesn't have limitations on what you can do with the material?

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

#547

Post by avgcorrection »

judge2020 wrote: post #490
vb-8448 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe people wouldn't be so angry about an AI trained on mostly open source code if said AI was open source, and not a proprietary SaaS. Exactly, the point is this one. Open-source doesn't mean liability free, you still have to comply to the license!

You don't if you are creating an entirely new work of art based solely on the knowledge and patterns you've learned from looking at other code, ie. a human learning to code by looking at millions of pages of code on GitHub; whether or not AI can learn in this way is the point of contention for AI art/code/chat generators.

The trick here is to implicitly personify the AI (a program) by comparing it to a human. Because they are both “learning”.

There’s no reason why we should have the same standards for programs and humans based on metaphors.

If I log in to a website three times a day, I am simply using a website. If a program logs in to a website three thousand times in the span of a second from multiple IP addresses, that’s probably a DOS attempt.

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

#548

Post by bombolo »

kragen wrote: post #470
bombolo wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To export you must abide to the laws of the country you're exporting to.

your novel theory of extraterritorial jurisdiction will no doubt be very interesting to trips litigators afaik asahi v. superior court is still governing precedent in the usa though so it won't be of any interest to domestic litigators in the usa

Perhaps you can't read words?

Extraterritorial jurisdiction?

You sell stuff to country A, you comply with laws of country A. Which is why USA companies have to take GRPR into account.

You make an illegal model for country A? Can't sell it there.

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

#549

Post by lofaszvanitt »

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…

These things should cough up money for the authors whenever something is generated with their data or make the whole thing (source code and models) accessible to everyone. So easy :D.

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

#550

Post by lelanthran »

kragen wrote: post #532
lelanthran wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many of these clauses are legally unenforceable because you can violate them without infringing on any of the rights that copyright law grants exclusively to the copyright holder (who can license them) That's news to Microsoft[1], who's shared source and various NDA licenses for the source code already has clauses restricting what you can do with it. [1] I think the problem is that the pro-AI arguments are coming f…

of course people who agree to a contract are bound by its terms under common law; the question in the original article is what copyright law does or doesn't allow people to do without any sort of contract unfortunately you have descended from simply making vaguely ignorant comments to attacking me, which indicates that further engagement with you is unlikely to be useful to anyone

The license is the contract. Literally.

And every nonFLOSS license and I've seen has restrictions on what the licensee can do with the material.

Can you find one nonFLOSS license that doesn't have restrictions or limitations?

I mean, you lead with obnoxious, then descended into condenscension, all while not realising that the whole point of the license is to restrict the licensee.

Post reply on HN