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

681–690 of 705 posts

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

#681

Post by nhchris »

snickerbockers wrote: post #634
nhchris wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

i think it's arrogant and selfish to assume that everybody has a stake in AI research. i want the license that the software i create (which has nothing to do with AI) to be obeyed. anyways, there's a lot of ways that AI researchers could engage with IP owners to come up with a fair way to use their work, but nobody's making that effort. If my content is part of an AI's training set (and especially if that AI has a te…

> it's arrogant and selfish to assume that everybody has a stake in AI research

I didn't assume anything, just described the likely consequence of your preferences.

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

#682

Post by dang »

kerpotgh wrote: post #193
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.

[flagged]

Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines so we don't have to keep banning you? I appreciate your good comments but bad ones destroy more than good ones contribute.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#683

Post by jstummbillig »

KaiserPro wrote: post #448
jstummbillig wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is any defensible reason to have people at large suffer over AI advancement, without having a plan for making their lifes better. If AI takes jobs because it's simply superior at them, and that creates friction and anxiety until we have stuff figured out, that's of course sad and we should do our best to soften the process, but I think it's inevitable. The carriage must die. It seems obvious that…

In the anglo-saxon world, I have not seen significant successful program since the industrial revolution that has helped or softened the impact of a new process on an affected lump of people[1]. The weavers were left to rot when the automatic looms came in. (there were in flanders east england and northern france incredibly rich and influential class) Furniture makers were left to rot when steam power tools came in F…

Fair enough. All is not well.

What I was more so thinking of are the unspecific societal functions that evolved to the benefit of everybody, but more so to those who could not have afforded them beforehand: Quality health care, various forms of social support, more accessible education and food, better road systems. The stuff that makes the charts on education, prosperity and health go from bottom left to top right and child mortality and hunger in the opposite direction.

The injustices of the day do not show in the most important, most long term graphs. As far as I can tell (and I am happy to hear your thoughts) this can only be true because people have benefitted increasingly from things improving, over time.

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

#684

Post by marmada »

The good thing about all of this is that the law doesn't really matter. People will complain about copyright, but the tech is here and the law will follow.

Does anyone really thing this anti-Copilot case has a chance of winning when my guess is that Copilot adoption is exponential over time.

Strongest counter argument is the Supreme Court struck down abortion even though abortion was rising in popularity. So that's a bit worrisome.

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

#685

Post by leobg »

Wut? Actually, I find the opposite is true. AI is so profitable precisely because it is a way of circumventing copyright. Steal from one creator and you can get sued. Steal from thousands and you can’t.

Obviously, creative people have always stolen from others. But it required a lot of time to immerse yourself in the work of others. With AI, it’s only a push of a button.

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

#686

Post by CBarkleyU »

taylorius wrote: post #615
CBarkleyU wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but that's not the point of contention. The training data set has been granted the right to be distributed (by virtue of it being available for viewing already - it's not hidden or secret). The proof is that a human can already view it manually. Let's call this 'public'. This is wrong. My paintings are publicly available (especially going by your definition [which I'm confused by the origin of?]). Taking a photograp…

But the AI is (supposedly) not making a copy of your painting. It is ingesting it, and adjusting it's internal "model of what a good painting looks like" to accommodate the information it gleaned from your work. This seems more similar to what a human might do, when they draw inspiration from another's work. The question is - to what extent does the exact image of your painting remain within the AI's data matrices? T…

> But the AI is (supposedly) not making a copy of your painting.

You are mixing up the two things that I've mentioned in my original comment. You have to differentiate between creating a copy and creating a derivative work. Both of those things matter, when talking about AI, but the former is way more cut clear.

>The question is - to what extent does the exact image of your painting remain within the AI's data matrices?

And the answer is: It's irrelevant. The model has to be ingested with a copy of something. That's all that matters. The AI could even reject learning from that something. By the time that something reaches the AI to even do something with it, it's been copied (in the literal sense) who knows how many times, each of those times being a copyright violation.

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

#687

Post by kube-system »

chii wrote: post #645
Groxx wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those may be fine, yes. But the AI as a whole is capable of reproducing the original in a recognizable form, and it does so on demand quite easily, because it was trained on them - how is it different than selling a zip file containing millions of copyrighted works, and also a bunch of new stuff?

> how is it different than selling a zip file containing millions of copyrighted works so you're saying that the digits of pi is violating copyright then?

Copyright law hinges on human element of the actions taking place, not on mathematical technicality. The digits of pi are not creative human expression, nor are they derived from human expression, they're a factual mathematical discovery. They can neither infringe on copyright, nor are they subject to it themselves.

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

#688

Post by usrbinbash »

freejazz wrote: post #664
usrbinbash wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not anthropomorphizing anything, because this is literally what happens. The model is taught, by having its predictions tested against examples, how images work.

You are, that's not what teaching means and it's not what learning means.

Okay, then what do these 2 terms mean?

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

#689

Post by usrbinbash »

crote wrote: post #677
usrbinbash wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is a completely different matter if you made a copy on a harddrive. But there are no copies. For example, the LAION-2b training data is a total of 240 TB. The pruned SD model based on this dataset, is less than 5GB. The data isn't copied into the models, it is used to teach the models, letting them learn patterns in the dataset.

Okay, but can you prove that? I have a 1.9 GB mp4 file on my harddrive. It contains 2 hours and 15 minutes of 1080p video data at 24 fps. Assuming it was generated from 4096x2160 16-bit color depth source material, the "training data" was 10.32 TB. I bet I could even get a similar size reduction as LAION-2b if I recompressed it to 720p. Could I not also claim that I created an advanced AI model, which did not copy bu…

> Could I not also claim that I created an advanced AI model, which did not copy but learned patterns in the dataset?

Such patterns would enable the video file to decode into a multitude of pictures not originally in the training data. Obviously, a video file cannot do that...it's just compressed data.

Generative models however can generate things that are not in its training set.

And of course, there is a fundamental difference in the source data between compressed video and a generative model: video codecs work with a sorted sequence of images, where most images are slight variations of the ones before them. The training for generative AI doesn't have these properties, the input is not an ordered sequence, and even similar pictures are not sequential variations of one another.

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

#690

Post by bluefirebrand »

Terretta wrote: post #650
bluefirebrand wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you assume that ML models should be treated as though they have the same rights and privileges as humans. Personally I reject that. ML needs to be restricted heavily.

Why does it need to? It's just the agent of a human. Sounds like an option instead of a need.

You're saying this as though we don't already have lots of regulations on tools to ensure that people use them appropriately.

Forklifts are "agents of humans" but you still need a license to drive one.

It's pretty obvious to me at least that AI bros are using these tools recklessly and inappropriately, without regard for licensing or copyright, and therefore I am proposing that the tools need to be regulated.

Simple as that.

Post reply on HN