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

Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 484 posts

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#31

Post by thomasahle »

qarl wrote: post #6

I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…

The human savant will remember where they read it and give you credit. It might lead more people to read your work, and ultimately you make money.

The AI won't even know where the page of text it's seeing came from, and people will avoid your book as they can just ask the AI. So you make less money. (Talking about specialized technical books here.)

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#33

Post by fantasizr »

qarl wrote: post #6

I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…

reading it after stealing it: gray area. producing & monetizing competing works devaluing the original is a problem

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#34

Post by jryan49 »

qarl wrote: post #6

I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…

I had to buy the copyrighted material before reading it... Meta apparently operates in a different legal system than me. That's my issue with it.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#35

Post by qarl »

jryan49 wrote: post #34
qarl wrote: post #6

I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…

I had to buy the copyrighted material before reading it... Meta apparently operates in a different legal system than me. That's my issue with it.

Yes, I have no objection to that part. It's the arguments that training itself is the problem.

Sarah Silverman as the most prominent example.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#36

Post by ipython »

Just gonna say... Aaron Swartz faced years of prison time and ultimately decided to take his own life... for downloading scientific journal articles... to share freely with the world (aka not even profiting from it).

But a multi-billion dollar corporation downloading millions of copyrighted creative works so that they can reshape the entire labor market by training a new type of artificial intelligence model on that data set? Meh, sounds like Silicon Valley disruption, give the man a medal!

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#37

Post by qarl »

doublescoop wrote: post #25
qarl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if you read the article, the point is in the training, not the reproduction. That's what all these lawsuits are about - it's the training not the reproduction. I already agreed in my first comment that the reproduction is off limits. In this case, it appears that Meta torrented illegal copies of the work to do the training. Obviously that's bad. But conflating that with training itself doesn't follow.

If copyright law doesn't extend to the works being used for training, why should it extend to the model that is produced as a result? AI model creators have set up an ethical scenario where the right thing to do is ignore copyright laws when it comes to AI, which includes model use. It might never be legal, but it has become ethical to pirate models, distill them against ToS, etc.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you say it a different way?

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#38

Post by swader999 »

I take issue with the use of tense used in this framing. Its not 'infringed' its 'infringing' and to say that it happened is wrong, its happening and happening continuously in these models that are in use. To say a one time payment settles it is missing the whole scope of this theft.

Royalties are owed and continuously owed as these models are deployed and doing inference. How is it any different to paying a small pittance to someone every time a song is played?

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#39

Post by NoOn3 »

qarl wrote: post #6

I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…

Why should an AI have the same rights as a human?

How about then to grant AI all other rights, for example, to allow voting?(sarcasm)

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#40

Post by qarl »

fantasizr wrote: post #33
qarl wrote: post #6

I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…

reading it after stealing it: gray area. producing & monetizing competing works devaluing the original is a problem

So is it a problem when humans produce and monetize competing works? My understanding is that there quite an industry in humans reading books and synthesizing their points. Cliff's Notes, for example.
Post reply on HN