[dead]
Extracting AI models from mobile apps
91–100 of 250 posts
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#92You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
You’re applying a double standard to LLM’s and human creators. Any human writer or artist or filmmaker or musician will be influenced by other people’s works, even while those works are still under copyright.
I don't see how this is a double standard. Comparing a person interacting with their culture is not comparable in any way. IMHO, it's kind of a wacky argument to make.
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI models are intellectual property If companies train on data they don't own and expect to own their model weights, that's hypocritical. Model weights shouldn't be copyrightable if the training data was pilfered. But this hasn't been tested because models are locked away in data centers as trade secrets. There's no opportunity to observe or copy them outside of using their outputs as synthetic data. On that subjec…
> If companies train on data they don't own and expect to own their model weights, that's hypocritical. Its not hypocritical to follow a line of legal analysis whoch holds that copying material in the course of training AI on it is outside the scope of copyright protection (as, e.g., fair use in the US), but that the model weights resulting from the training are protected by copyright. It maybe wrong, and it may be c…
I think it is fair to say that existing copyright law was not written to handle all of this. It was written for people who created works, and for other people who were using those works.
To substitute either party with a computer system and assume that the existing law still makes sense may be assuming too much.
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#94You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
You’re applying a double standard to LLM’s and human creators. Any human writer or artist or filmmaker or musician will be influenced by other people’s works, even while those works are still under copyright.
as a human being, and one that does music stuff, i don’t download terabytes of other peoples works from the internet directly into my brain. i don’t have verbatim reproductions of people’s work sitting around on a hard disk in my stomach/lungs/head/feet.
LLMs are not humans. They’re essentially a probabilistic compression algorithm (encode data into model weights/decode with prompt to retrieve data).
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re applying a double standard to LLM’s and human creators. Any human writer or artist or filmmaker or musician will be influenced by other people’s works, even while those works are still under copyright.
I don't see how this is a double standard. Comparing a person interacting with their culture is not comparable in any way. IMHO, it's kind of a wacky argument to make.
Can you elaborate on how it's not comparable? It seems obvious to me that it is -- they both learn and then create -- so what's the difference?
If I can hire an employee who draws on knowledge they learned from copyrighted textbooks, why can't I hire an AI which draws on knowledge it learned from copyrighted textbooks? What makes that argument "wacky" in your eyes?
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#96You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
Fair use.
The moment you earn money from it, that's not fair use anymore. When I last checked, unlimited access to said models were not free, plus it's not "research" anymore.
- Addenda -
For the interested parties, the law states the following [0].
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
So, if you say that these factors can be flexed depending on the defendant, and can be just waved away to protect the wealthy, then it becomes something else, but given these factors, and how damaging this "fair use" is, I can certainly say that training AI models with copyrighted corpus is not fair use in any way.
Of course at the end of the day, IANAL & IANAJ. However, my moral compass directly bars use of copyrighted corpus in publicly accessible, for profit models which undermine many people of their livelihoods.
From my perspective, people can whitewash AI training as they see fit to sleep sound at night, but this doesn't change anything from my PoV.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this is a double standard. Comparing a person interacting with their culture is not comparable in any way. IMHO, it's kind of a wacky argument to make.
Can you elaborate on how it's not comparable? It seems obvious to me that it is -- they both learn and then create -- so what's the difference? If I can hire an employee who draws on knowledge they learned from copyrighted textbooks, why can't I hire an AI which draws on knowledge it learned from copyrighted textbooks? What makes that argument "wacky" in your eyes?
you're asking why you have to treat people differently than you treat tools and machines.
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on how it's not comparable? It seems obvious to me that it is -- they both learn and then create -- so what's the difference? If I can hire an employee who draws on knowledge they learned from copyrighted textbooks, why can't I hire an AI which draws on knowledge it learned from copyrighted textbooks? What makes that argument "wacky" in your eyes?
you're asking why you have to treat people differently than you treat tools and machines.
Well obviously not in general. But when it comes to copyright law specifically, yes absolutely. That is the question I'm asking.
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair use.
The moment you earn money from it, that's not fair use anymore. When I last checked, unlimited access to said models were not free, plus it's not "research" anymore. - Addenda - For the interested parties, the law states the following [0]. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or…
You can absolutely monetize works altered under fair use.
Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair use.
The moment you earn money from it, that's not fair use anymore. When I last checked, unlimited access to said models were not free, plus it's not "research" anymore. - Addenda - For the interested parties, the law states the following [0]. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or…
"Making money" does not immediately invalidate fair use, but it does wave a big red flag in the courts' faces.