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

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 321 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#141

Post by yieldcrv »

nvy wrote: post #6
yieldcrv wrote: post #2

I’ve made so much money stacking my pitch decks and websites with AI generated media that I don't care if someone copy and pastes it and uses it commercially too People married to their prompt engineering outputs are really missing the forest for the trees

Perhaps it's the artists on whose content your models got trained that are rightfully upset. After all, you're not giving them a dime and neither is "open" "AI"

You don’t know which models I used and never will know if that condition has suddenly become satisfied

Curious what the next goal post will be, I’ve seen them move already

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#142

Post by 40yearoldman »

The only clear solution is to abandon the notion of a copyright.

We have know for a long time that everything can be represented with numbers, even more so within the space of computers.

All we have done is invent a system to help us find numbers we find special.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#143

Post by gremlinsinc »

rcme wrote: post #97
meowkit wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion as a SWE who is dating a lawyer (joke, not a serious qualification but it does provide some insight): Generative models traverse and interpolate high dimensional state spaces. These state spaces are created from input data. I would argue people do the exact same thing - the first main difference is we can use novel inputs (e.g. we can use images or words to develop our music/temporal state spaces and vice…

Whether or not “humans do it” isn’t relevant. You can walk around with a copyrighted song in your head. That is not copyright infringement. But if you take that song, create a digital copy, and distribute it for money, then you are violating someone’s copyright. Additionally, our legal system requires a balance of probabilities. It’s hard to prove that someone was influenced by another work unless the similarities ar…

I challenge you to listen to 4 chords of awesome and tell me again about how every song is completely original. How does eragon exist when it's definitely ripped parts from star wars, etc...ai usually doesn't spit out a full plagiarism, but a loosely inspired work which is what most media we consume is.

Edit: 4 chords of awesome link is https://youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ&si=8vL6PbDnHiaffJh3

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#144

Post by Joel_Mckay »

javajosh wrote: post #128
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #122

AI Jesus chat-bot could claim copyright over biblical content. In theory, a company that owns Christian (c 2023) content could be filing DMCA claims every Sunday. The silliness of digital-racketeers must end at some point. =)

You've described a viable startup business plan.

It is what I enjoy doing, but someone has already launched a product. =)

text-with-jesus:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/text-with-jesus/id6446922759

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#145

Post by tomrod »

fluidcruft wrote: post #107
rickmode wrote: post #14

I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…

I personally have a really hard time finding any meaningful difference or distinction between "AI" and "lossy compression". Copyright and "lossy compression" are pretty easy to reason about. Model "building" is "compression". Model "use" is "decompression". Everything about these AI models seems to be about the "lossy" part, but "lossy" is just an adjective to the main show. It's very difficult to not conclude that c…

Some compression, yes, but the analogy oversimplifies. AI rerepresents input information in a transformative way (embedding, say) then creates new, derived and combined output from a new input (e.g prompt).

It's not just lossy compression. It's potentially novel.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#146

Post by skydhash »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #20
nvy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's the artists on whose content your models got trained that are rightfully upset. After all, you're not giving them a dime and neither is "open" "AI"

Do the artists pay other artists they "trained" on consciously and subconsciously?

Have you trained as an artist? It’s very different from what LLMs are. If you’re good enough, you can reproduce any style, but people try not to because it’s obvious. And more importantly, you avoid copying ideas and presentation.

But the most glaring issue is attribution. You can avoid paying, but not doing attributions is my pet peeve. Even when doing fanart, fanfics, and parodies, most people take care to mention where their inspiration comes from.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#147

Post by asu_thomas »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #137

Much debate has been had about how existing copyright law applies to AI models. But once you get past that and start asking about how copyright should apply to AI models (as the copyright office is here) the answer in my mind becomes clear. Copyright, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, exists "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1]. I can think of no better modern example of "the Progress of Science…

Although I disagree and consider copyright an anti-social institution only necessary due to the anti-social capitalist mode of relations, I commend you for making an actually coherent argument on this question. It is the first coherent argument I've come across outside of the small Marxist circles I run in.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#148

Post by chii »

showerst wrote: post #139
Ajedi32 wrote: post #137

Much debate has been had about how existing copyright law applies to AI models. But once you get past that and start asking about how copyright should apply to AI models (as the copyright office is here) the answer in my mind becomes clear. Copyright, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, exists "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1]. I can think of no better modern example of "the Progress of Science…

So i'm not sure how I feel, but to play Devil's advocate -- If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit, perhaps I'm much less likely to progress Science and useful Arts by creating content in the first place. I fear an internet of signup walls and TOC agreements for everything, just to prevent crawlers that feed…

> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model

but today, without an AI model, anything you create is already going to be learnt and studied (if it is worth studying of course). What's the difference, but speed?

> they get 99% of the profit

Why is that a priori the assumption? What stops you from getting a profit?

> I do 99% of the work

you did 0.000001% of the work, since the model contains billions of other works from which they train.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#149

Post by chii »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #137

Much debate has been had about how existing copyright law applies to AI models. But once you get past that and start asking about how copyright should apply to AI models (as the copyright office is here) the answer in my mind becomes clear. Copyright, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, exists "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1]. I can think of no better modern example of "the Progress of Science…

> 3. Output of AI models should be copyrightable by the person running the model

i would go further, and declare that this output is uncopyrightable.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#150

Post by fluidcruft »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #120
fluidcruft wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally have a really hard time finding any meaningful difference or distinction between "AI" and "lossy compression". Copyright and "lossy compression" are pretty easy to reason about. Model "building" is "compression". Model "use" is "decompression". Everything about these AI models seems to be about the "lossy" part, but "lossy" is just an adjective to the main show. It's very difficult to not conclude that c…

When you perform lossy compression, you feed it one file at a time, not every file in existence.

If you concatenate images into a stream container (say as tar) and then compress the stream, the compression coding will (generally) cross over the individual images. True, that's generally not lossy compression.

But concatenating images is also how you create video. Lossy video compression does typically cross over frames. So I don't actually see a difference. If you want to think about mkv or mp4 instead of zip it's still the same concept.

There's nothing stopping you from putting every available image into a video and figuring out how to compress it lossily.

Maybe there's some bounds for how much information was lost? Obviously piping everything into /dev/null destroys the input. And piping /dev/random from a true random source creates information. So somewhere between that and lossless compression there's the nebulous "plagarism" threshold. And then there's another threshold that is copyright infringement that's considered "fair use".

But the general structure of the "AI" this is about are fundamentally storage and retrieval.

Post reply on HN