undefined | Better HN

0 pointsumvi9mo ago0 comments

> the people whose work has been stolen to create it

"Stolen" is kind of a loaded word. It implies the content was for sale and was taken without payment. I don't think anyone would accuse a person of stealing if they purchased GRRM's books, studied the prose and then used the knowledge they gained from studying to write a fanfic in the style of GRRM (or better yet, the final 2 books). What was stolen? "the prose style"? Seems too abstract. (yes, I know the counter argument is "but LLMs can do more quickly and at a much greater scale", and so forth)

I generally want less copyright, not more. I'm imagining a dystopian future where every article on the internet has an implicit huge legal contract you enter into like "you are allowed to read this article with your eyeballs only, possibly you are also allowed to copy/paste snippets with attribution, and I suppose you are allowed to parody it, but you aren't allowed to parody it with certain kinds of computer assistance such as feeding text into an LLM and asking it to mimic my style, and..."

0 comments

autoexec9mo ago

AI has been trained on pirated material and that would be very different from someone buying books and reading them and learning from them. Right now it's still up to the courts what counts as infringing but at this point even Disney is accusing AI of violating their copyrights https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/11/business/media/disney-uni...

AI outputs copyrighted material: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/25/business/ai-i... and they can even be ranked by the extent to which they do it: https://aibusiness.com/responsible-ai/openai-s-gpt-4-is-the-...

AI is getting better at data laundering and hiding evidence of infringement, but ultimately it's collecting and regurgitating copyrighted content.

astrange9mo ago

> at this point even Disney is accusing AI of violating their copyrights

"even" is odd there, of course Disney is accusing them of violating copyright, that's what Disney does.

> AI is getting better at data laundering and hiding evidence of infringement, but ultimately it's collecting and regurgitating copyrighted content.

That's not the standard for copyright infringement; AI is a transformative use.

Similarly, if you read a book and learn English or facts about the world by doing that, the author of the book doesn't own what you just learned.

kod9mo ago

Facts aren't copyrightable. Expression is. LLMs reproduce expression from the works they were trained on. The way they are being trained involves making an unlicensed reproduction of works. Both of those are pretty straightforwardly infringement of an exclusive right.

Establishing an affirmative defense that it's transformative fair use would hopefully be an uphill battle, given that it's commercial, using the whole work, and has a detrimental effect on the market for the work.

yencabulator9mo ago

> AI is a transformative use.

Reproducing a movie still well enough that I honestly wouldn't know which one is the original is transformative?

2 more replies

quantified9mo ago

Stolen doesn't imply anything is for sale, does it? Most things that are stolen are not for sale.

strangattractor9mo ago

I think there is case to be made that AI companies are taking the content - providing people with a modified version of that content and not necessarily providing references to the original material.

Much of the content that is created by people is done so to generate revenue. They are denied that revenue when people don't go to their site. One might interpret that as theft. In the case of GRRM's books - I would assumed they were purchased and the author received the revenue from the sale.

michael19999mo ago

I think you are missing some context. They were using Anna's Archive! They paid for nothing, downloaded in violation of copyright, and processed it. They violated US copyright law even before they actually ingested it!

skywhopper9mo ago

Yes, there are ethical differences to an individual doing things by hand, and a corporation funded by billions of investor dollars doing an automated version of that thing at many orders of magnitude in scale.

Also, LLMs don’t just imitate style, they can be made to reproduce certain content near-verbatim in a way that would be a copyright violation if done by a human being.

You can excuse it away if you want with reduction ad absurdum arguments, but the impact is distinctly different, and calls for different parameters.

GuinansEyebrows9mo ago

> It implies the content was for sale and was taken without payment

that's literally what happened in innumerable individual cases, though.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse