Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–217 of 217 posts

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#211

Post by shakna »

soulofmischief wrote: post #208
shakna wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't think downloading my paid-for books, from an illegal sharing site, to scrape and make use of, is in any way fair use. From the decision in 1841, in the US (Folsom vs Marsh): > reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most im…

Art is highly derivative for the most part, and artists are constantly learning from each other. The jury's out whether this applies to machines. Training an LLM on data is not the same as copying it. As such, the case right now against Meta is wholly focused on the acquisition part and not the training itself.

Meta's AI will quote some of my books in whole. So, yeah. That's copying.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#212

Post by eru »

GuB-42 wrote: post #146
eru wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It still protects attribution (so you can't claim it yours), but it probably would have worked without it, [...] Well, you could imagine a world that protects the 'moral' rights of authors like attribution, but doesn't otherwise prohibit anyone from duplicating or modifying works.

I don't know about the US but in French "droits d'auteur", moral rights are treated differently from exploitation rights. In particular, they cannot be waived, they cannot be sold, and there is no "work-for-hire". For example, even as an employee, every line of code you write will be yours until you die and nothing can change that. You may not be allowed to do anything with it (for example because the exploitation ri…

Yes, that's what I had in mind.

So something like the French system minus copyright would approximate the BSD license.

(I was thinking of Germany, which works similarly, if memory serves right. You also cannot release anything you write into the public domain by German law, though you can do legal moves that are essentially equivalent.)

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#213

Post by eru »

thih9 wrote: post #157
eru wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you explicitly opt-in to Twitter ToS whenever you post anything there.

This is not opt-in how I understand it. When there is no alternative, or the alternative is not using a service, I'd call it a hard requirement instead. I like how opt-in is handled by GDPR; e.g.: "Consent must be a specific, freely given, plainly worded, and unambiguous affirmation given by the data subject (...) A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly…

> When there is no alternative, or the alternative is not using a service, I'd call it a hard requirement instead.

There's plenty of alternatives to Twitter.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#214

Post by larrled »

djaychela wrote: post #178
larrled wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I think he thought he could save us. And that it mattered. A narcissistic and paranoid view which happens to be shared by most everyone.

Can you expand on that?as written I can't make much sense of your comment. FTR I don't think he thought he could save us, I think he thought he could do cool stuff (space and EVs) and now says climate change isn't as bad as he used to think (despite mountains of evidence to the contrary).

Normal people who have basic needs met will self actualize. Elon like most of us in the juseo-Christian/Hollywood West, sees himself as a potential messiah; Bruce Wayne or Tony stark or bono or something. A good thing that, what kendrick Lamar called “the anxiety of influence.” Should not the richest man want to save the world? Alas, a messiah complex is short lived in the public sector. Lazy narcissists belong in politics, crazy narcissists in industry. Elon is the latter.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#215

Post by soulofmischief »

shakna wrote: post #211
soulofmischief wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art is highly derivative for the most part, and artists are constantly learning from each other. The jury's out whether this applies to machines. Training an LLM on data is not the same as copying it. As such, the case right now against Meta is wholly focused on the acquisition part and not the training itself.

Meta's AI will quote some of my books in whole. So, yeah. That's copying.

We must separate the act of training from the act of distribution (which could include filtering). Training and personal use seems well within the scope of fair use.

I do however understand why you would be upset if Meta or OpenAI hosts/distributes a model that could fully reproduce your books (assuming that is really the case) and make money providing that information.

That said, and I'm not trying to move goalposts here, I just don't personally find Meta in particular to be morally at fault, as I already have particular views on the freedom for myself and others to share information with each other that may be incompatible with your views (and to be clear, as an artist and open source engineer I do have an informed personal opinion on this matter, I have deeply considered and continue to reconsider the balance of freedoms required for artists to make a living off their craft without infringing upon what I see as inalienable personal freedoms).

Meta released their models publicly and freely after investing a lot of time and money into them, and I see it as a net good for humanity to have access to these incredible neural networks that were relegated to science fiction just a few years ago.

I also think LLMs are going to force us to rethink our entire approach to copyright. Whether that means abandoning our current notions of copyright entirely, or creating residuals for hosted commercial LLMs, or something else, I don't know.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#216

Post by DaSHacka »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #209
DaSHacka wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is, creating all this AI and advanced technology is directly crushing that world. Do you have a source for this?

This increase: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ Would not be possible without the continued advancement of technology. Technology allows us to rapidly expand the human population, see all of the healthcare and transportation technology, which has resulted in a vastly higher extinction rate. Pretty much all the damage we have done on earth is only possible due to advanced technology.

There's a certain cabin-loving mathematician who'd probably agree with you about that.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#217

Post by josefritzishere »

MoonGhost wrote: post #55
josefritzishere wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in the EU, GDPR dictates that you own your data generally speaking. If you're in the US it varies by state if you have any rights at all.

If you own your face that doesn't mean nobody can take a picture on the street.

That is partly true, there are carve outs for public spaces. But what they can do with that image is still governed by the GDPR in the EU.
Post reply on HN