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

Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

biia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 183 posts

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#21

Post by ziddoap »

dougmwne wrote: post #13

I think it’s a weak argument anyway. A pencil can be used to recreate copyrighted works. Why should a LLM be different? The legal responsibility always has been and should continue to be on the person publishing or making available the work. And at any rate, a country banning this tech will be missing the revolution. Protecting the buggy whip manufacturers and all that.

A pencil can be used to recreate copyrighted works. Why should a LLM be different?

Speed and scale make these completely unrelated in my opinion.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#22

Post by mjburgess »

This is just an end to copyright. There is no definition of "AI", it has always been a marketing term for monetising csci research. There is no difference between a lossy jpg, taking its pixels as weights, and the weights of a NN.

So if i just zip up copyrighted images using a NN, then, what? They're public domain?

Regulators here are miles away from understanding the implications -- this is what happens when you let companies whose profit motive is selling "AI" be the "Experts" on the topic.

If you don't care about Disney, fine -- so what about your health records? This is also the prelude to an end to privacy

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#26

Post by munk-a »

asah wrote: post #9

So wait. If I encode something near-losslessly into a neural net then it's ok? Books and music are now free ?

Pretty much yea - while trying to make way for progress Japan may have accidentally blown a gigantic hole in their IP rights system that renders the whole thing essentially moot.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#27

Post by limaoscarjuliet »

badcppdev wrote: post #10

So I can see the logic in treating the inputs to the AI training data sets the same way we treat humans learning something. A potential downside is that AI systems can 'mechanise' the creation of material that potentially infringes copyright (in the same way that human generated content can infringe) But a potential upside is that we can 'mechanise' the process by which we judge whether new content infringes the copy…

We learned to make a distinction based solely on "mechanisation" aspect: - email vs spam, - phone call vs robo-call, - hand drawn vs a copy machine (to some extent), - etc.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#28

Post by jasoneckert »

I wonder how or if this will affect the NYT case (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38781941). It could potentially shift the focus from protecting the source of the data used to train models to preventing the outputs from competing with the source.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#29

Post by Pet_Ant »

badcppdev wrote: post #10

So I can see the logic in treating the inputs to the AI training data sets the same way we treat humans learning something. A potential downside is that AI systems can 'mechanise' the creation of material that potentially infringes copyright (in the same way that human generated content can infringe) But a potential upside is that we can 'mechanise' the process by which we judge whether new content infringes the copy…

> So I can see the logic in treating the inputs to the AI training data sets the same way we treat humans learning something.

If we don't take this approach then there will be a series of very lame legal loop-holes with putting mechanical Turks [1] in the process. Or just end up with very "I know it when I see it" legislation.

So for both practical and philosophical grounds I do support this.

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

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#30

Post by traverseda »

How would that effect, for example, maintaining a large corpus of pirated work for training AI on? Presume that you didn't break any other laws in the process of pirating the works? Could I license a large corpus of pirated work to people explicitly using it for AI training? Like if I downloaded all the books, and then sold access to that collection to someone for AI training, with them agreeing to a EULA preventing them from actually reading the books?

All kinds of interesting legal questions.

Post reply on HN