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

91–100 of 426 posts

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

#91

Post by nl »

musicale wrote: post #67
mannyv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no difference between an art student looking through a museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for training. Same could be said for reading. A medical student reading through textbooks or a writer who reads is essentially what an AI is doing. You can ask an art student to create something in a certain style. You can get writes to write in a certain style. Equivalent.

> There's no difference between an art student looking through a museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for training. A few notable differences: 1. Scale: a single art student can't view millions of works in a week. 2. Duplication: a single art student's brain can't be cloned or downloaded into another art student's brain. 3. Speed: a single art student cannot draw or paint thousands of images in a…

These are all true. But they apply equally to a search engine index and that has already been found not to violate copyright and to be very useful to society.

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

#92

Post by bastawhiz »

musicale wrote: post #67
mannyv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no difference between an art student looking through a museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for training. Same could be said for reading. A medical student reading through textbooks or a writer who reads is essentially what an AI is doing. You can ask an art student to create something in a certain style. You can get writes to write in a certain style. Equivalent.

> There's no difference between an art student looking through a museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for training. A few notable differences: 1. Scale: a single art student can't view millions of works in a week. 2. Duplication: a single art student's brain can't be cloned or downloaded into another art student's brain. 3. Speed: a single art student cannot draw or paint thousands of images in a…

Notably none of those things, if they did apply to the art student, are copyright violations. The speed, scale, versatility, and ownership of a machine learning model has no bearing on its ability to violate copyright.

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

#93

Post by madeofpalk »

nl wrote: post #89
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…

I strongly agree with this. There's a distinction between "learning from" and "copying". "Learning from" is a transformative process that distills from the observation. This distillation can be as simple as indexing for a search engine, or as complex as a deep neural network. Simply because a neural network can create something that is a copyright violation doesn't mean the training process itself it. A human can see…

> A human can see a advertisement for a Marvel movie and then reproduce the Marvel logo. Redistributing (and possibly actually doing that reproduction) that logo is a copyright violation, but the learning process isn't.

This then becomes about where the liability of that violation lies, and how attractive that is to companies.

A human "learning" the marvel logo and reproducing it is violation. How does OpenAPI fit into this analogy?

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

#95

Post by ROTMetro »

kyleyeats wrote: post #14

[flagged]

If you are 'learning' is nothing but taking existing drawings and storing them in an electronic format (no matter that it's a super lossy a format, for example an MP3 made from a CD is still a copy no matter how low you set the low bitrate.) then no, no you are not. Now if you learning involves training a human brain on actual techniques to replicate how someone else did something, then yes, yes you are.

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

#96

Post by jpollock »

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…

Copying into RAM during training is making a copy, and can be a copyright violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....

However, it seems that there is a later case in the 2nd circuit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Hol....

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

#97

Post by barelyauser »

visarga wrote: post #48
Guthur wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boost for who though? if it works out there'll be more for less. Wages won't increase, the number of jobs won't increase the price of assets will inflate. None of these are good things for 99% of us.

> Wages won't increase, the number of jobs won't increase When new capability appears, many industries pop up. It's a new market, a new gold rush. It happened many times, with cars, electricity, air transport, computers, internet. AI will spring many applications and will create jobs in those fields. We have been under a 260 year run of industrial revolution and 70 years of computer programming. And yet unemployment…

>And yet unemployment is low and IT jobs are well paid

Naive at best, tone deaf at worst. Unemployment is low? Most jobs barely allow a person to live a decent life. AI will empower few, the rest will find themselves unable to create any value. All the "economic growth" will be the increasing profits and economic inequality.

When cars were created anyone could foresee the demand of people to manufacture them. Tell me, what jobs will AI create?

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

#99

Post by wwweston »

surgical_fire wrote: post #30
wwweston wrote: post #17

If you're not going to socialize AI gains, and leave in place the social systems that value people by their output, waiving copyright or other IP is astoundingly anti-humane. What should be instead is that fair use doesn't apply to AI training. That is, anything other than explicitly negotiated opt-in should be illegal.

Eh, I disagree. Copyright laws are mostly bullshit anyway, and only tend to favor capital holders, who tend to buy up all the copyright they need. I would gladly see copyright rendered useless. The peasantry hardly benefits from it anyway.

"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. The full benefits of copyright law don't always accrue to every creator, but the reason for that capital has stronger economic power when it comes to capturing distribution (often aided by consumers who prefer something like Spotify which is priced inexcusably low) which it can leverage into stronger negotiating power against creators, not because "copyright law is mostly bullshit."

When the system works (and it does for some people) creators are rewarded and can invest more time in doing things better. When it doesn't (ugh, streaming revenues), the situation could be improved, but as is generally the case not by just deciding to not bother with the whole thing.

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

#100

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

anonylizard wrote: post #59
nmkag wrote: post #7

[flagged]

People need to understand policy making is not some binary battle between 'billionaires and commoners'. Let me give you the context behind this decision. 1. Japan is horrifically behind in software engineering compared to its neighbours, especially China. This is because of a culture that undervalues software engineers (Who don't tend to thrive in a lifetime employment/de-facto unionised environment) 2. This has star…

>Let me give you the context behind this decision.

Japan is not anime. You can't just come up with some theories about how something may affect anime (which is debatable in any case) and then claim it is therefore the context behind Japan's policies. It's interesting that you criticize GP for thinking policy making is "some binary battle between 'billionaires and commoners'" and then explain that it's actually about Genshin Impact.

Post reply on HN