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

111–120 of 183 posts

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

#111

Post by redcobra762 »

paxys wrote: post #41

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 nea…

I’ve come around somewhat on this, at least insofar as I do believe it’s a novel legal question that I genuinely don’t see a clean way through.

If AI training maximally wins, it could substantially erode the value of IP to the degree of threatening the business models of some very important societal pillars like news media.

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

#112

Post by exe34 »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #87

For all we know, in 5 years you could ask an AI to "reproduce the entire Supernatural TV show but change the character names, dialog and look just enough to bypass copyright issues - 7 seasons, 24 episodes each MP4 format"

Is anybody going to want to watch it other than the one who ordered it? Would anyone order this modified version before having paid for and enjoyed the original? If the market is flooded with these cheap copies, wouldn't the original have even more value for authenticity?

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

#113

Post by ziddoap »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #98
ziddoap wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment doesn't say what my opinion on the topic is, just that pencils and LLMs are hardly comparable due to difference in speed and scale.

Congratulations, by attaching qualitative legal importance to scale, speed, and size, you just successfully argued that the First Amendment doesn't apply on the Internet. You'll make friends on both sides of the political aisle with that position, but it's a shame to see it so readily accepted around here. (Can't reply due to HN's rate limiting algorithm that penalizes me after four or five posts while allowing the m…

Congratulations, you just successfully argued that the First Amendment doesn't apply on the Internet.

What?

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

#114

Post by lesuorac »

mdorazio wrote: post #99
lesuorac wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is what the crux of NYT's lawsuit is about, and making laws about AI training isn't going to make a difference to that. The claims of NYT are more than just about training. They're claiming that as part of the ChatGPT software; it _looks up_ stuff in a database of articles. That is beyond _training_. If a human kept around a briefcase of NYT articles they didn't pay for and let you view them for a fee I think…

> If a human kept around a briefcase of NYT articles they didn't pay for and let you view them for a fee I think everybody would agree that's copyright infringement. Except that's not what it's doing. Show me how I can get ChatGPT to show me the full text of a NYT article.

You can read the lawsuit yourself. It goes into great detail and obviously you didn't believe me based on the previous comment so you might as well do some original research then.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68117049/the-new-york-t...

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

#115

Post by kaibee »

slibhb wrote: post #42
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.

At that direct level yeah probably, and I do think copyright is dumb and should be if not abolished, limited to 20 years or whatever. That said, imagine training a network from scratch entirely on Disney's catelog. Even if that model is then prompted to generate new characters, it seems weird to say that Disney's copyright wasn't infringed.

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

#116

Post by itishappy »

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?

I find this a pretty week argument too. Does an LLM use a pencil? Can an LLM use a pencil? Does a pencil watch anime or read the NYT? Does a pencil create new work when upon request?

Are these things really comparable? Are they even related?

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

#117

Post by rvz »

night-rider wrote: post #72
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…

Generative AI tweaks the original material such that it's modified beyond recognition, and non verbatim. A bit like how artists tweak other artist's work, put their own spin on it, and then pass it off as 'original'.

Or produces the watermark from the copyright holder which even Getty can see it is theirs [0], implying that Stability AI trained on Getty's images without their permission and tried to commercialize it via DreamStudio.

[0] https://www.technollama.co.uk/high-court-rules-that-getty-v-...

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright...

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

#119

Post by ben_w »

cwillu wrote: post #36
ziddoap wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The printing press also indirectly triggered the Reformation, and through that the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War, and through all those together the invention of the concept of Westphalian sovereignty. And in the UK the "Licensing of the Press Act 1662" (full title "An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses" so guess what they cared about here).

While the ideals of freedom these brought may be desirable, we may want to avoid repeating the bloodshed from this particular bit of history. And that goes double for anyone in government who takes personal exception to being treated like French royalty.

Post reply on HN