undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgreenhexagon2y ago0 comments

"Violating copyright" is a completely imaginary problem. We have a somewhat arbitrary set of laws, rules, guidelines and social norms about using existing ideas.

American law for instance has limits on the duration of copyright before something becomes public domain, explicit exemptions for "fair use" for education, journalistic reporting, commentary, etc.

If "copyright" is a problem in the way of training AI models, then we should all collectively vote for politicians who fix that problem by updating the laws to make the training explicitly allowed. Problem solved.

(Alternatively, if you're evil, vote for politicians who will let the billionaires strengthen their domination and subjugation of the other 99.9999% of humans by making copyright laws even more in favor of TimeWarner-Disney-Miramax-FoxNews-Lockheed-GE or whatever the current conglomerate is).

0 comments

naet2y ago

It's not a completely imaginary problem or a problem only affecting big corporations. If I'm an individual writer or artist and my work gets fed into an LLM against my will it can seriously undercut the value of that work or discourage me from creating more.

If you can just ask the LLM to give you the contents of my book you are less likely to buy it, and if you can just ask the image generator to generate an image in my unique style for free you won't want to buy my artwork.

I think it makes perfect sense that a model needs a specific license to train on my work, especially if the model is run by a massive corporation making a profit off it, and the model after downloading a copy of my work and "training" can reproduce it verbatim on request.

gaganyaan2y ago

That's not what copyright is for. That's like saying "what if someone reads my book and I don't like them?" That sucks for you, but it's a personal problem unrelated to copyright.

greenhexagonOP2y ago

Do you think students should need a specific license to read a book? Do visitors to an art gallery need a specific license to look at paintings? Do audiences need specific licenses to watch a play?

Those people will be influenced by what they've read/seen/heard and their own future writing/drawing/filming/acting/editing/playing might draw inspiration from what they've learned, and they might incorporate things they've learned into their own future work.

Literally every book, song and work of art is "violating copyright" on the thousands of other works that the creator learned from while growing up, if we hold the same standard.

naet2y ago

This is a common argument currently, but I think training a LLM is clearly not the same as a student learning. There might be some superficial similarities but they are fundamentally different on many levels (speed, scale, perfect recall, public access, etc). They are held to different standards because they aren't the same thing.

You can listen to a song on the radio or on an internet stream but not have the rights to record and redistribute it (but you do have the right to listen to it at home with multiple people, etc).

An LLM training is closer to "recording and redistributing" than it is to "taking inspiration" or "human learning" in my opinion.

CaptainFever2y ago

> If "copyright" is a problem in the way of training AI models, then we should all collectively vote for politicians who fix that problem by updating the laws to make the training explicitly allowed. Problem solved.

Yep. The EU has this, as does Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia. A lot of countries have already recognised that it's not a good idea to restrict AI dev because of IP "rights".

polypodiopsi2y ago

As arbitrary as the rest of the capitalist framework. These arbitraty constraints are interdependent though. So while you might be right you can not just drop copyright (on whose existence the livelihood of a lot of people depends), but you will have to let go of thr whole assumption that the production of surplus value goes into private profits (or way above average incomes for that). Something is telling me that this isn't as appealing to you as getting your ressources for free by the expropriation of intellectual property, is it?

chupapimunyenyo2y ago

Exemptions? Didn't you mean exceptions?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsgreenhexagon2y ago0 comments

"Violating copyright" is a completely imaginary problem. We have a somewhat arbitrary set of laws, rules, guidelines and social norms about using existing ideas.

American law for instance has limits on the duration of copyright before something becomes public domain, explicit exemptions for "fair use" for education, journalistic reporting, commentary, etc.

0 comments

naet2y ago

gaganyaan2y ago

That's not what copyright is for. That's like saying "what if someone reads my book and I don't like them?" That sucks for you, but it's a personal problem unrelated to copyright.

greenhexagonOP2y ago

Do you think students should need a specific license to read a book? Do visitors to an art gallery need a specific license to look at paintings? Do audiences need specific licenses to watch a play?

Literally every book, song and work of art is "violating copyright" on the thousands of other works that the creator learned from while growing up, if we hold the same standard.

naet2y ago

You can listen to a song on the radio or on an internet stream but not have the rights to record and redistribute it (but you do have the right to listen to it at home with multiple people, etc).

An LLM training is closer to "recording and redistributing" than it is to "taking inspiration" or "human learning" in my opinion.

CaptainFever2y ago

Yep. The EU has this, as does Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia. A lot of countries have already recognised that it's not a good idea to restrict AI dev because of IP "rights".

polypodiopsi2y ago

chupapimunyenyo2y ago

Exemptions? Didn't you mean exceptions?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse