| ▲ | JoshTriplett 7 months ago |
| > copyright extremists It's not copyright "extremism" to expect a level playing field. As long as humans have to adhere to copyright, so should AI companies. If you want to abolish copyright, by all means do, but don't give AI a special exemption. |
|
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 7 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's actually the opposite of what you're saying. I can 100% legally do all the things that they're suing OpenAI for. Their whole argument is that the rules should be different when a machine does it than a human. |
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Only because it would be unconscionable to apply copyright to actual human brains, so we don't. But, for instance, you absolutely can commit copyright violation by reading something and then writing something very similar, which is one reason why reverse engineering commonly uses clean-room techniques. AI training is in no way a clean room. | |
| ▲ | nhinck3 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | You literally can't | | |
| ▲ | p_l 7 months ago | parent [-] | | You literally can. Your ability to regurgitate remembered article that is copyrighted does not make your brain a derivative work because removing that specific article from the training set is below noise floor of impact. However reproducing the copyrighted material based on that is a violation because the created reproduction does critically depend on that copyrighted material. (Gross simplification)
Similar to how you can watch & read a lot of Star Wars and then even ape Ralph McQuarrie style in your own drawings but unless the result is unmistakenly related to Star Wars there's no copyright infringement - but there is if someone looks at the result and goes "that's Star Wars, isn't it?" | | |
| ▲ | nhinck3 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Can you regurgitate billions of pieces of information to hundreds of thousands of other people in a way that competes with the source of that information? | | |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | If there was only one source for a piece of news ever, you might be able to make that argument in good faith, but when there are 20 outlets with competing versions of the same story it doesn't hold. | |
| ▲ | YetAnotherNick 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is called internet. It could regurgitate billions of pieces of information to billions of people every day. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | IAmGraydon 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Except LLMs are in no way violating copyright in the true sense of the word. They aren’t spitting out a copy of what they ingested. |
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Go make a movie using the same plot as a Disney movie, that doesn't copy any of the text or images of the original, and see how far "not spitting out a copy" gets you in court. AI's approach to copyright is very much "rules for thee but not for me". | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | That might get you pretty far in court, actually. You'd have to be pretty close in terms of the sequence of events, character names, etc. Especially considering how many Disney movies are based on pre-existing stories, if you were, to, say, make a movie featuring talking animals that more or less followed the plot of Hamlet, you would have a decent chance of prevailing in court, given the resources to fight their army of lawyers. | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 100% agree. but now a million$ question - how would you deal with AI when it comes to copyright? what rules could we possibly put in place? | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 7 months ago | parent [-] | | The same rules we already have: follow the license of whatever you use. If something doesn't have a license, don't use it. And if someone says "but we can't build AI that way!", too bad, go fix it for everyone first. | | |
| ▲ | slyall 7 months ago | parent [-] | | You have a lot of opinions on AI for somebody who has only read stuff in the public domain | | |
|
|
|
|
