141–150 of 410 posts
I have yet to see someone explain in detail how transformer model training works (showing they understand the technical nitty gritty and the overall architecture of transformers) and also layout a case for why it is clearly a violation of copyright. You can find lots of people talking about training, and you can find lots (way more) of people talking about AI training being a violation of copyright, but you can't fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
these comparisons of llms with human artists copying are just ridiculous. it’s saying “well humans are allowed to break twigs and damage the planet in various ways, so why not allow building a fucking DEATH STAR”. abstracting llms from their operators and owners and possible (and probable) ends and the territories they trample upon is nothing short of eye-popping to me. how utterly negligent and disrespectful of fell…
It's that the space of intellectual property LAW does not handle the robust capabilities of LLMs. Legislators NEED to pass laws to reflect the new realities or else all prior case law relies on human analogies which fail in the obvious ways you alluded to.
If there was no law governing the use of death stars and mass murder, and the only legal analogy is to environmental damage, then the only crime the legal system can ascribe is mass environmental damage.
Big Tech: We shouldn’t pay, each individual piece of content is worth basically nothing. Also Big Tech: We added 300.000.000 users worth of GTM because we trained in the 10 specific anime movies of Studio Ghibli and are selling their style.
The funny thing is that style is not copyrightable.
I wonder when general internet sentiment moved from pro-piracy to IP maximalism. Fascinating shift.
Maybe the government should set up a fund to pay all the copyright holders whose works were used to train the AI models. And if it's a pain to track down the rights holders, I'll play a tiny violin.
I wonder when general internet sentiment moved from pro-piracy to IP maximalism. Fascinating shift.
No hard data to back this up, but anecdotally I'd place the AI/copyright sentiment shift around mid-late 2022. DALL-E 2 experimentation (e.g: [0]) in early-mid 2022 seemed to just about sneak by unaffected, receiving similar positive/curious reception to previous trends (TalkToTransformer, ArtBreeder, GPT-3/AI Dungeon, etc.), but then Stable Diffusion bore the full brunt of "machine learning is theft" arguments. [0]:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We are talking about the rights of the humans training the models and the humans using the models to create new things. Copyright only comes into play on publication. It's only concerned about publication of the models and publication of works. The machine itself doesn't have agency to publish anything at this point.
"Humans are allowed to breathe, so our machine is too, because it is operated by humans!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We are talking about the rights of the humans training the models and the humans using the models to create new things. Copyright only comes into play on publication. It's only concerned about publication of the models and publication of works. The machine itself doesn't have agency to publish anything at this point.
I think, A new chapter is about to begin. It seems that in the future, many IPs will become democratized — in other words, they will become public assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
these comparisons of llms with human artists copying are just ridiculous. it’s saying “well humans are allowed to break twigs and damage the planet in various ways, so why not allow building a fucking DEATH STAR”. abstracting llms from their operators and owners and possible (and probable) ends and the territories they trample upon is nothing short of eye-popping to me. how utterly negligent and disrespectful of fell…
That's also why I'm really not worried about the "AI singularity" folks. The hype is IMO blatantly unsubstantiated by the actual capabilities, but gets pushed anyway only because it speaks to this deep-seated faith held across the industry. "AI" is the culmination of an innate belief that people should be replaceable, fungible, perfectly obedient objects, and such a psychosis blinds decision-makers to its actual limits. Only trouble is whether they have the political power to try to force it anyway.
Well, firing someone for this is super weird. It seems like an attempt to censor an interpretation of the law that: 1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigat…
The law covers these cases pretty well, it is just that the law has very powerful extremely rich adversaries, whose greed has gotten the better of them again and again. They could use work released sufficiently long ago to be legally available, or they could take work released as creative commons, or they could run a lookup, to make sure to never output verbatim copies of input or outputs, that are within a certain s…