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

Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

technomancers.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 426 posts

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#291

Post by soraminazuki »

Dalewyn wrote: post #171
georgewsinger wrote: post #6

Japan also ranks 3rd (behind the USA & India, with larger populations) in ChatGPT usage: https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/ There's also been discussion of their government using ChatGPT to reduce red tape: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-18/japan-gov... It's cool to see Japan and Japanese culture taking techno-optimist stances on AI.

>It's cool to see Japan and Japanese culture taking techno-optimist stances on AI. Japan has always seen artificial intelligence and its integration into human society favorably. Look at Doraemon or any anime in the super robot genre.

Discussion in Japan is far more nuanced just like everywhere else. Misuse of technology is an often repeated theme in the Doraemon series, and robot animes often cover wars.

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#292

Post by zirgs »

photochemsyn wrote: post #186

I've been playing around with having ChatGPT write responses in Nadsat (Anthony Burgess's Clockwork Orange language), such as: > "But let me tell you, my dear droogs, that's nothing but a load of Drencrom-induced babble, targeting those poor sods who've been raised as ponies. Open your glazzies and see the truth for yourselves: generative AI's writing is the real deal - it can spin tales as vellocet as any human scri…

Can a language be copyrighted at all?

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#293

Post by inkblotuniverse »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #277
lmm wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are going to use someone else's work in order to make something that you are going to profit off of, I believe that original author should be compensated. And should also be able to decide they don't want their work used in that way. > Note that I'm not talking about what existing copyright law says; I'm talking about how I believe we should be regulating this new facet of the industry. Is it really new? Hum…

> Humans have always learnt by studying what's out there already. Our whole culture is built on what's been done and published before Are you implying that educators should not be compensated or credited? Because that is not how it works in the real world.

If I read a lot of fantasy books as a kid, then start writing my own fantasy book, should I have to pay royalties to the authors of the books I read?

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#294

Post by sacrosancty »

gary_0 wrote: post #261
andsoitis wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were the copyright holder of such work, I would argue that the LLM was trained on text, including my copyrighted work, and that if the system produced text that a reasonable person who reads poetry would identify as the copyrighted work, the burden is then logically on the LLM owner to prove the LLM didn't regurgitate a piece of text from something it previously ingested. I think a jury would side with my argume…

The issue isn't that a generator lets you evade copyright somehow; it doesn't. The output is not the issue. If I sit in paint and my assprint happens to perfectly duplicate a Picasso, that's unlikely to fly in court if I try to sell copies. Picasso painted it first. The point at issue here is that some people are arguing that the models themselves are like a giant collective copyright infringement, since they are in…

[dead]

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#295

Post by Mordisquitos »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #293
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans have always learnt by studying what's out there already. Our whole culture is built on what's been done and published before Are you implying that educators should not be compensated or credited? Because that is not how it works in the real world.

If I read a lot of fantasy books as a kid, then start writing my own fantasy book, should I have to pay royalties to the authors of the books I read?

Does your ability to write fantasy books absolutely depend on having read those fantasy books as a kid? Was gaining the ability to write your own fantasy books and profit from them your only motivation to read those fantasy books? After gaining the ability to write fantasy books thanks to having read them, can you now produce fantasy books at a qualitatively different speed, scale, and conditions than any of the authors of the books that you read?

If the answer to those three questions is "yes", then I would argue that yes, you absolutely should have to pay royalties to the authors.

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#296

Post by sacrosancty »

anticensor wrote: post #259
mbgerring wrote: post #207

Looking forward to the DRM arms race if this is how the courts come down on this in the US.

In most of the world including the US, the output side is considered non-copyright instead, due to the non-personality of the creator. The UK is a fringe exception here.

[dead]

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#297

Post by rrwo »

pxoe wrote: post #287
fnordpiglet wrote: post #19

I think this should generally be true. The aggregation performed by model training is highly lossy and the model itself is a derived work at worst and is certainly fair use. It may produce stuff that violates copyright, but the way you use or distribute the product of the model that can violate copyright. Making it write code that’s a clone of copyright code or making it make pictures with copy right imagery in it or…

Some licenses, like CC, have variants that prohibit production of derivatives, or prohibit commercialization, or require licenses or same requirements to be preserved in derivative works. Sweet to see people "warm up" to say stuff like 'well it's just a derived work'. Can we get tech to actually respect the licenses of used works next? It's something that's been asked for all along. Without just going, 'well, it's al…

I suspect that enforcement of licences will be based on who owns the licence.

A large corporation? Of course. You're not even aloud to talk about the product without paying a fee.

A small creator? Oh no, it's fair use.

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#298

Post by wwweston »

zirgs wrote: post #288
wwweston wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AIs can ignore copyright" is the absolute ultimate in blank check for capital holders. Waiving copyright to solve the problem of systems favoring them is like deciding to jump because you're afraid of heights. Copyright law has done a huge amount to reward creators -- I know even local-tier artists and musicians without the support of large capital who make a good chunk of their living through sales supported by it.…

How do I benefit from 90 years long copyright terms?

The same way you benefit from copyright being valuable to creators at all combined with the reason why options with longer exercise horizons are more valuable.

Honestly I'm not sure 90 years or whatever is the optimal time and I'm certainly willing to sign on to discussion with thoughtful people or even political movements about whether term length reform should be included in those "when it doesn't [work]" considerations regarding copyright I mentioned earlier. Lengths beyond max(author_lifetime,half_average_lifespan) probably have diminishing social and individual returns.

But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter.

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#299

Post by zirgs »

wwweston wrote: post #298
zirgs wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I benefit from 90 years long copyright terms?

The same way you benefit from copyright being valuable to creators at all combined with the reason why options with longer exercise horizons are more valuable. Honestly I'm not sure 90 years or whatever is the optimal time and I'm certainly willing to sign on to discussion with thoughtful people or even political movements about whether term length reform should be included in those "when it doesn't [work]" considera…

There's a huge difference between, say, 25 years after publication and 70-90 years after the author's death.

I'd argue that shorter copyright terms would be benefical to society. It would force Disney to finally create something new instead of endless reboots, sequels and remakes. How many Batman reboots do we have now? How many do we need?

Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training

#300

Post by [deleted] »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #63
sandworm101 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Making a single copy for your own use is still a copyright violation. There are exceptions (fair use, nomitive use etc) but just because people are rarely sued for personal copying doesnt equate to that copying being permitted. And trademark issues, such as the other commenter generating the superman logo, are subject to a host of other rules.

Training a model isn’t making a copy for your own use, it’s not making a copy at all. It’s converting the original media into a statistical aggregate combined with a lot of other stuff. There’s no copy of the original, even if it’s able to produce a similar product to the original. That’s the specific thing - the aggregation and the lack of direct reproduction in any form is fundamentally not reproducing or copying t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN