US copyright law only applies in the US. AI can be developed outside of the US where other laws apply. So, the US using the straight jacket of copyright law to stifle innovation would only cause AI companies to move their business; or non US companies stepping up. I don't think that's actually going to happen though. The stakes are too high for that and this case seems quite weak. Copyright law has its limitations. B…
>> US copyright law only applies in the US This isn't entirely true, due to various entangled trade agreements that require countries to respect each other's intellectual property as a prerequisite. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
More legislatures ought to repudiate the treaties their predecessors blindly signed.
> Maybe people wouldn't be so angry about an AI trained on mostly open source code if said AI was open source, and not a proprietary SaaS. Exactly, the point is this one. Open-source doesn't mean liability free, you still have to comply to the license!
You don't if you are creating an entirely new work of art based solely on the knowledge and patterns you've learned from looking at other code, ie. a human learning to code by looking at millions of pages of code on GitHub; whether or not AI can learn in this way is the point of contention for AI art/code/chat generators.
The `human learning` argument comes a lot in every discussion about copilot, but it's a completely different thing, and misleading.
`Human learning` involves understanding beyond the words and sentences, copilot doesn't know anything about our world.
> laws that cannot be enforced in practice are bad laws; Who said they couldn't be enforced? The argument from the pro-AI team is that we shouldn't have those laws in the first place. I'm saying, let's keep the laws we already have because they already work quite nicely if the content creators don't want their work included in any training data set. Rushing to make new laws because "Muh AI" is silly.
probably before rushing to categorize people into teams and ridicule those you think are on a different team from you, it would serve you well to understand the basic principles of the field you are commenting on so that you are in a position to assess the factual claims people are advancing if you are failing to understand the factual claims, you have no hope of making sense of the normative claims for which you hav…
I'm not on a team, but the notion from the pro AI people that licensors cannot add restrictions on their material is, frankly, childish in its logic.
Almost all big companies routinely have licenses which heavily restrict how their software may be used, and the licenses have held up time and time again in various jurisdictions around the world.
The only argument you appear to be presenting is "well and don't like it that way".
Tough. It's already that way and has been so for dozens of decades .
I'm hooked on Stable Diffusion. It's the most impressive sudden leaps in technology in my 30 or so years of being old enough to understand it. Much of the power it has, is based on the material it is trained on, and I'm very appreciative of the work and effort that was made in order to make it what it is. And, it's only getting started. That said... I get it. Huggingface are working on a diffusion based model for mus…
The music industry should be like visual arts, not the other way around. Do we want more inane lawsuits based on vague similarities?
> If the AI industry is to survive, we need a clear legal rule that neural networks, and the outputs they produce, are not presumed to be copies of the data used to train them. Otherwise, the entire industry will be plagued with lawsuits that will stifle innovation and only enrich plaintiff’s lawyers Or maybe, get this, how about people running AI only feed them information that they legally have the right to use? Ho…
As an extension of this, only allow children to look at works they purchased publication rights to, lest their creative output becomes influenced by a different person's style.
The most original authors are those who never learned how to read.
> Or maybe, get this, how about people running AI only feed them information that they legally have the right to use? How is it a bad thing that somebody can't legally steal other peoples' work without their permission because of pesky copyright? On one extreme: "Unless you pay your annual Disney fee for having watched Disney films in early childhood, you will need to return your brain to us for processing. Disney wa…
Very curious that so many people adopted this position exactly when it became feasible for giant corporations to profit by mass producing laundered copyrighted works!
Implying that I haven’t always been anti-copyright. How is either this comment or yours supposed to be productive?
You see how you’re introducing a viewpoint and assuming it’s true — you’re just saying “humans can create things” and “ai can’t create things”. You don’t even address the possibility that the AI itself is a tool of the human who created it to create things.
I think in order to justify "the AI is a tool that a human is using, just like a paintbrush" you would have to have to define what meaningful creative process that the human has followed while using the tool. In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. Conside…
In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. >>> When it's bleeding edge research there is a ton of human creativity involved in developing the product and engineering the dataset.
> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? […] Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of “copyrighted” insights This comment fundamentally and dangerously misunderstands Copyright Law. Insights are not copyrighted, nor are they copyrightable. Copyright law controls who gets to distribute a specific “fixation” or performance of work. It is not, and never was about preventing the spread of…
So if I visually look at a piece of work and “run” the NN training algorithm in my meat-space brain or even on pen and paper, do I need to ask for permission for doing so? Or is permission required only if silicon chips “run” the algorithm? Asking for a friend.
This isn’t what the comment I replied to was suggesting, which is important because the NN training algorithm isn’t how humans observe creative work, nor how we make insights. But, yes, the same standards apply whether your deterministic machine is silicon based, or meat based. Copyright law applies to both. If you reproduce significant parts of a fixed performative work, then you are in violation of the law. If your algorithm mixes enough snippets from enough sources, then it’s hard to tell, and you probably won’t get caught, but it doesn’t really change the fact that you’re mechanically copying. FWIW, copyright precedent in music seems to allow human-made remixes that involve multiple sources, as long as the work as a whole is original and doesn’t reproduce significant parts of the sources.
Moral principles apply to living things. The living things in question are people at big companies training models to sell them as services from behind paywalls.
Stability AI is a small enough company that it doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The Stable Diffusion model is freely available to everyone along with the source code.
It’s very much the exception. Most of this industry is “build a model on public data and make billions on it behind a paywall.”