Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by LegitShady » Thu, Jan 04, 2024, 7:28 PM UTC

jncfhnb wrote: post #180

LegitShady wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Both of these stories involve using the art to the same degree "the art" -> the art you made that you have rights to use, or "the art" that someone else made that you don't have rights to use? >It’s just a matter of whether you needed a human in the middle No, your story was you made totally new art that you had rights to use to train your AI. It's not a human in the middle, its a human author who allows you to use…

Ok so you’re 100% on board that humans have no claim to their personal styles. Cool. It’s ok to make a LegitShady bot as long as you can pay someone $30 to make a few works stylistically similar to yours? Because if that’s true, you’ve just agreed that the value of your creativity is $0. You don’t even get the $30 here. Nobody really wants your specific works, and your creativity will be freely available. In fact it…

At this point its clear you are not engaging in quality discussion and this is a waste of time. Have a great day.

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

#182

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 2:25 AM UTC

badcppdev wrote: post #175

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is the output, not the input. If LLMs were just learning from their training set and generating novel output, the same way a human might, then there'd be no problem. The issue is that generative AI - both for images as well as text - in effect memorize sources as well as learn from from, and can end up regenerating training sources verbatim (or with minimal changes in case of images). I don't think any US c…

I don't understand your point because humans generate novel output AND memorise and regurgitate source material. I believe human artists consciously adjust their output to avoid copying previous artists too closely. And sometimes they choose to copy very closely or exactly. Obviously the same feature can be implemented as an option on generative AI systems.

My point is that Japan can claim whatever they want about copyright not applying to LLM inputs (training data), but it makes no difference. Copyright infringement will be judged on what they output. Of course, many outputs will be novel enough to avoid copyright claims, but not all, same as the output of a human.

No doubt generative AI systems could be built to self-police and not emit any tentative outputs that are too close to training samples, but that's certainly not the way they are today, and it's not clear from the article that started this topic that this issue is addressed in any way by the Japanese law, which is just about training data.

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

#183

Post by jncfhnb » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

LegitShady wrote: post #181

jncfhnb wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so you’re 100% on board that humans have no claim to their personal styles. Cool. It’s ok to make a LegitShady bot as long as you can pay someone $30 to make a few works stylistically similar to yours? Because if that’s true, you’ve just agreed that the value of your creativity is $0. You don’t even get the $30 here. Nobody really wants your specific works, and your creativity will be freely available. In fact it…

At this point its clear you are not engaging in quality discussion and this is a waste of time. Have a great day.

I am.

These are the consequences of your own rhetoric. You are ignoring them for cheap shots to take the moral high ground. You can’t just say “I’m the side of artists” and conclude that you’re doing good. Your rule set is VERY WEAK and prone to abuse. It will not meaningfully protect artists at all.