321–330 of 824 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is stable diffusion any different when including a famous artwork or artist in the prompt? The images produced are eerily similar to training data.
probably not and likely open to similar law suits - this is not really a bad thing
Specifically, sections D.4 to D.7 grant Github the right to "to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video."
Large platforms like github will just stick blanket agreements into the TOS which grant them permission (and require you indemnify them for any third party code you submit). By doing so they'll gain a monopoly on comprehensively trained AI, and the open world that doesn't have the lever of a TOS will not at all be able to compete with that.
Copilot has seemed to have some outright copying problems, presumably because its a bit over-fit. (perhaps to work at all it must be because its just failing to generalize enough at the current state of development) --- but I'm doubtful that this litigation could distinguish the outright copying from training in a way that doesn't substantially infringe any copyright protected right (e.g. where the AI learns the 'ideas' rather than verbatim reproducing their exact expressions).
The same goes for many other initiatives around AI training material-- e.g. people not wanting their own pictures being used to train facial recognition. Litigating won't be able to stop it but it will be able to hand the few largest quasi-monopolisits like facebook, google, and microsoft a near monopoly over new AI tools when they're the only ones that can overcome the defaults set by legislation or litigation.
It's particularly bad because the spectacular data requirements and training costs already create big centralization pressures in the control of the technology. We will not be better off if we amplify these pressures further with bad legal precedents.
I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…
Your code is not in that thing. That thing has merely read your code and adjusted its own generative code. It is not directly using your code any more than programmers are using print statements. A book can be copyrighted, the vocabulary of language cannot. A particular program can be copyrighted, but snippets of it cannot, especially when they are used in a different context. And that is why this lawsuit is dead on…
They would have directly used my code when they trained the thing. I see it as an equivalent of creating a zip-file. My code is not directly in the zip file either. Only by the act of un-zipping does it come back, which requires a sequence of math-steps.
I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…
Attributions are fundamental to open source? I thought having source openly available was fundamental to open source (and allowed use without liability/warranty) as per apache, mit, and other licenses. If they just stick to using permissive-licensed source code then i'm not sure what the actual 'harm' is with co-pilot. If they auto-generate an acknowledgement file for all source repos used in co-pilot, and then asked…
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
This is the "attribution" requirement that even a Copilot trained on only-MIT code would miss.
If it were just about sharing code, there are public domain declarations and variants like CC0 licenses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.
Somewhere in the complex math is the origin of whatever it is in intellectual property that we deem worthy of protection. Because we are humans, we take the complex math done by human brains as worthy of protection by fiat . When a painter paints a tree, we assign the property interest in the painting to the human painter, not the tree, notwithstanding that the tree made an essential contribution to the content. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a lawyer since this is nonsense.
It's literally the standard BSD 2-Clause License, word for word, with an additional third clause: 3. Use in source or binary forms for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited. Hardly nonsense, but obviously you aren't equipped to judge. More about the BSD licenses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…
Your code is not in that thing. That thing has merely read your code and adjusted its own generative code. It is not directly using your code any more than programmers are using print statements. A book can be copyrighted, the vocabulary of language cannot. A particular program can be copyrighted, but snippets of it cannot, especially when they are used in a different context. And that is why this lawsuit is dead on…
I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…
> “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program” Not really? It's less about arithmetic and more about inferencing data in higher dimensions than we can understand. Comparing it to traditional computation is a trap, same as treating it like a human mind. They've very different, under the surface. IMO, if this is a data problem then we should treat it like one. Simple fix - find a legal basis for which licenses a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.
> The brain is also just a "complex math program" Source?