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

31–40 of 183 posts

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

#31

Post by throwawaymaths »

mjburgess wrote: post #22

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…

Completely crazy take. Your health records are not currently protected by copyright law. If someone magically snapped their fingers and eliminated copyright law, the protections on your health data, scant though they may be, would more or less be the same (IANAL)

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

#32

Post by GreedClarifies »

Good for Japan.

The copyright claims are spurious, the laws were never written with such powerful algorithms in mind. If copyright applies to training, and if law is based upon principles instead of raw power then such a ruling would lead to strange places.

Bravo.

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

#33

Post by traverseda »

throwaw33333434 wrote: post #17
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how sensible copyright policy is equivalent to burning infants as human sacrifice to Canaanite deities.

moloch in ginsberg's sense

Still though, this seems like a reasonable copyright option.

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

#34

Post by gwd »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #7
mensetmanusman wrote: post #5

Moloch wins. Too much money to be made.

I fail to see how sensible copyright policy is equivalent to burning infants as human sacrifice to Canaanite deities.

Context: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

TLDR: A "Moloch Trap" is a generic term for situations like the the Prisoner's Dilemma, where optimal actions for the group are the opposite of optimal actions for each individual in that group.

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

#36

Post by cwillu »

ziddoap wrote: post #21
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.

Speed and scale also makes the printing press completely different than the pencil, but the principle that the user is responsible for the output remains practical.

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

#37

Post by tensor »

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 ?

Being able to train an AI is different than using it to reproduce copyright works verbatim. I could easily see a rule where you can train a model, but it's still on you to make sure that you don't use output from it that is too close to a copyright work.

This to me seems like the right approach, and is not much different from what humans do. Humans are free to read whatever source material they want, but you can't subsequently write it down from memory verbatim or nearly verbatim.

edit: And if you think I'm being hypothetical, Github Copilot already does exactly this.

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

#39

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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.

What's the difference between picking a cherry tomato from your streetside garden and eating it, and driving a combine harvester over your lawn and taking everything?

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

#40

Post by CamperBob2 »

ziddoap wrote: post #21
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.

You will still eventually run into absurd contradictions whenever you blame a tool for the actions of its user. Subjective factors like "scale and speed" should have no place in the law, even though they often do.

Never mind that every regulation that constrains AI development in the West is a giftwrapped blessing to China and other actors that DGAF about copyright law.

Post reply on HN