131–140 of 183 posts
The source referenced is the minutes a representative made in a committee last year in april and within that a clarification question while discussing AI in education. It's not policy, not recent and not true.
But at least it was written by a real human! /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is little more than baseless fearmongering. "zip up copyrighted images using a nn" is trek level technobabble. that's not how NNs work. how the hell does it even connect to privacy? copyright isn't what makes it illegal to expose and have your medical records it's privacy violations, which this doesn't even touch
> "zip up copyrighted images using a nn" is trek level technobabble. Look up 'overfitting', neural-network based compression, etc. or that paper that used zip compression as a neural-network basically. Farthest thing possible from being 'technobabble' once you understand how inextricably linked compression and 'understanding' is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I'm not a lawmaker, but it's probably pretty hard to write a law that effectively distinguishes between "doing X" and "doing X at scale". As another commenter mentions, if you target the means of doing it (human doing X vs. machine doing X), someone will just use Mechanical Turk or something to hire 10,000 humans to do X. If telling AI to study Spiderman and then output 10 pictures of Spiderman is illegal, how is tha…
I think the more immediate issue with AI is that it's like having access to a close-to-zero cost human who doesn't care whether or not they're creating content which, if a human did it, would be considered a copyright infringement. And that they care so little about copyright (and other data rights) that they're basically incapable of even warning you if they are close to an existing character or living person.
I don't know how this is going to play out, but right now we're getting a more polite re-run of the luddites smashing early industrial equipment. I can sympathise with the loss of purpose and economic disenfranchisement, but the economic power in that revolution went to those that did the most automation, and I expect the same to be true this time.
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…
Sounds similar to the lawsuits against Google by the newspapers of the world for them providing excerpts of their articles on the search result page or so. So essentially you can ask chatgpt to fetch and summarize a paywalled article, because openai has subscribed their crawler?
You might be thinking of newspapers’ political campaigns such as C-18 in Canada, which were done in bad faith. The newspapers wanted links to stay but wanted money too.
OpenAI can’t do this for NYT without destroying their model and remaking it.
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"
Seven seasons? I thought you said reproduce the entire show? 37 seasons :D
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…
That would not be transformative. If it is also provided as a commercial service that directly competes against the copyright holder, then that would not be 'fair use'.
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. Sure. Slightly more interesting is if that same human with those same breifcases was taking money to answer questions and referenced those papers, but did not just provide the article or headlines, and might not even be paraphrasing the article at all. I…
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'.
The same thing happens for images - the more an output looks like an input, the more likely (as diffusion-based generation proceeds) it is to look more like it. There are recent examples of Dune posters being recreated essentially as-is.
The source referenced is the minutes a representative made in a committee last year in april and within that a clarification question while discussing AI in education. It's not policy, not recent and not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
If you ask it to sure, but there are examples of ChatGPT reproducing whole NYT articles, with not nearly enough alterations to constitute a new work.