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

41–50 of 183 posts

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

#41

Post by paxys »

There is a distinction to be made between inputs and outputs when it comes to AI and copyright. Most people focus on the former, and discuss whether you can train an LLM on copyrighted works or not, but ultimately the issues really only manifest in the latter.

An AI training itself on a million newspaper articles can be declared legal, sure, but what happens when it also starts spitting out the same articles with nearly no modification? Is that still fair use? This is the crux of NYT's lawsuit, and making laws about AI training isn't going to make a difference to that.

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

#42

Post by slibhb »

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…

It seems pretty clear what AI means in this context.

> There is no difference between a lossy jpg, taking its pixels as weights, and the weights of a NN.

Somehow I don't think this is going to hold up in court.

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

#43

Post by jncfhnb »

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…

It is not a problem if people can mechanism copyright infringements. If the violation is material enough to matter in a public market then we can sue.

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

#44

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#45

Post by ziddoap »

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…

If you don't care about Disney, fine -- so what about your health records?

Can you help me understand the relationship here?

Something can be protected by privacy laws without being under copyright, and vice versa.

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

#46

Post by munk-a »

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…

It'd be really interesting to open up a movie theater in Japan that just ingests blockbusters through a "do nothing" NN and then be able to screen them royalty free. This decision feels incredibly half baked.

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

#47

Post by mjburgess »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #31
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)

So to be clear -- you're well aware that in the case of your private data that you have an interest in preventing it being used to train AI.

Great. So d'you think you could outline a reason why you wouldnt have an interest in your creative works not being used also?

Either the training data is, as big-ad-tech says, essentially equivalent to generic human experiences -- ie., weakly repoducible; OR it is extremely reporducible, and equivalent more to standard contemporary data compression.

If you're kool-aid'ing the former on copyright, why not the latter on privacy?>

Post reply on HN