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

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 410 posts

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#391

Post by sdenton4 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #367
Suppafly wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Their weights are derived from copyrighted works. Evaluating them preserves the semantic meaning and character of the source material. That sounds like you're arguing that they should be legal. Copyright law protects specific expressions, not handwavy "smudgy and non-deterministic" things.

Llms can't express, that's the primary issue. You can't just make a collage of copyrighted works and shield yourself from copyright with "expression".

That's certainly an opinion.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#392

Post by Suppafly »

staticman2 wrote: post #386
Suppafly wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The person making the argument is capable of distinguishing the two things, they just performatively choose not to do so. I think that sort of assumption of insincerity is worse than what you're accusing them of. You might not like their argument, but it's not inherently incorrect for them to argue that because humans have the right to do something, humans have the right to use tools to do that something and humans…

Anyone writing "humans can learn from art why can't machines" or something to that effect is performatively conflating an organism and a machine. My issue is with the rhetoric, if that isn't the rhetoric you are using I am not talking about you.

My issue is that your rhetoric of "performatively conflating an organism and a machine" doesn't address the core issue of "humans can learn from art why can't machines". You're essentially saying that you don't like the question so you're refusing to answer it. There is nothing inherently wrong with training machines on existing data, if you want us to believe there is, you need to have some argument about what that would be the case.

Is your argument simply about your interpretation of copyright law and your mentality being that laws are good and breaking them is bad? Because that doesn't seem to be a very informed position to take.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#393

Post by Suppafly »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #367
Suppafly wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Their weights are derived from copyrighted works. Evaluating them preserves the semantic meaning and character of the source material. That sounds like you're arguing that they should be legal. Copyright law protects specific expressions, not handwavy "smudgy and non-deterministic" things.

Llms can't express, that's the primary issue. You can't just make a collage of copyrighted works and shield yourself from copyright with "expression".

>You can't just make a collage of copyrighted works and shield yourself from copyright with "expression".

And yet collage artists do that all the time.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#394

Post by Suppafly »

const_cast wrote: post #347
Suppafly wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sometimes, so sometimes it's copyright infringement. So in those cases, the original authors might have a case. Generally you don't see these LLM doing that though. >Doesn't help that it's explicitly for-profit and seeks to obsolesce and siphon value from it's training material. Doesn't hurt either. That's a reason to be butthurt, but that's not a legal argument.

> That's a reason to be butthurt, but that's not a legal argument. It is a legal argument, fair use specifically takes into account the intention. Just using it for commercial ventures makes the water hotter.

>It is a legal argument

Not a very good one then.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#395

Post by rollcat »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #359
rollcat wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I always felt rebellious about the contemporary face of "rules for thee but not for me", specifically regarding copyright. Musicians remain subject to abuse by the recording industry; they're making pennies on each dollar you spend on buying CDs^W^W streaming services. I used to say, don't buy that; go to a concert, buy beer, buy merch, support directly. Nowadays live shows are being swallowed whole through excl…

We regulate it like how we did centuries ago that lead to copyright. If we already have rules we enforce it. If no one in power wants to, we put in people who will. In the end this all comes down to needing the people to care enough.

Disney continued to lobby to extend copyright for like half a century. A lot of people did care. What use is regulation if you can just buy it?

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#396

Post by p0w3n3d »

mattxxx wrote: post #51

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…

it's funny how a law becomes potentially-outdated only when big corporations want to violate in on a global scale.

As a private person I no longer feel incentivised to create new content online because I think that all I create will eventually be stolen from me...

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#397

Post by staticman2 »

Suppafly wrote: post #392
staticman2 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone writing "humans can learn from art why can't machines" or something to that effect is performatively conflating an organism and a machine. My issue is with the rhetoric, if that isn't the rhetoric you are using I am not talking about you.

My issue is that your rhetoric of "performatively conflating an organism and a machine" doesn't address the core issue of "humans can learn from art why can't machines". You're essentially saying that you don't like the question so you're refusing to answer it. There is nothing inherently wrong with training machines on existing data, if you want us to believe there is, you need to have some argument about what that…

My stated opinion is anyone who comes to an AI conversation and says "I can't tell the difference between organisms and computers" or some variation thereof does in fact have no trouble in practice distinguishing between between their child/ mom/ dad/ BFF and ChatGPT as is in fact questioning from a position of bad faith.

"There is nothing inherently wrong with training machines on existing data..." doesn't really conflate a machine with an organism and isn't what I'm talking about.

If you instead had written "I can read the Cat in the Hat to teach my kid to read why can't I use it to train an LLM?"

Then I do think you would be asking with a certain degree of bad faith, you are perfectly capable of distinguishing those two things, in practice, in your everyday life. You do not in fact see them as equivilent.

Your rhetorical choice to be unable to tell the difference would be performative.

You seem to think I'm arguing copyright policy. I really am discussing rhetoric.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#398

Post by 93po »

School-Cotton wrote: post #381
93po wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not? people write fiction all the time and put it on the internet for free. in fact, i'd say there's significantly more unpaid fiction writing in the world than paid.

Yes, and most of it is awful, whereas Joanne Rowling is talented. It’s very unlikely that she would (or even could) have devoted herself to writing fiction in her free time as a passion project without hope of monetary reward and without any way to live from her writing for the ten years it took to finish the Potter series. And even if she had somehow managed, you’d never hear about it, because without publishers to…

Most is awful, but I'd still say there's just as much good unpaid fiction as paid fiction. Lots of paid fiction is also really, really bad.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#399

Post by School-Cotton »

93po wrote: post #398
School-Cotton wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and most of it is awful, whereas Joanne Rowling is talented. It’s very unlikely that she would (or even could) have devoted herself to writing fiction in her free time as a passion project without hope of monetary reward and without any way to live from her writing for the ten years it took to finish the Potter series. And even if she had somehow managed, you’d never hear about it, because without publishers to…

Most is awful, but I'd still say there's just as much good unpaid fiction as paid fiction. Lots of paid fiction is also really, really bad.

Ok, what are some examples of high-quality literary fiction published for free?

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#400

Post by johnnyanmac »

Suppafly wrote: post #393
johnnyanmac wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Llms can't express, that's the primary issue. You can't just make a collage of copyrighted works and shield yourself from copyright with "expression".

>You can't just make a collage of copyrighted works and shield yourself from copyright with "expression". And yet collage artists do that all the time.

I'll remind you that all fanart is technically in a gray area of copyright infringement. Legally speaking, companies can take down and charge infringement for anything using their IP thars not under fair use. Collages don't really pass that benchmark.

Yoinnking their up and mass producing slop sure is a line to cross, though.

Post reply on HN