I did say "free to do whatever they like on their own hardware", because intellectual property laws generally govern the transfer of such property rather than the use.

After seeing the harm done by the expansion of patent law to cover software algorithms, and the relentless abuse done under the DMCA, I am reflexively skeptical of any effort to expand intellectual property concepts.

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

  > on their own hardware

That doesn't make it technically legal. That only makes it not worth pursuing. You can sue Joe Schmoe for a million dollars but if he doesn't have that then you're not getting a dime. But if Joe Schmoe is using that thing to make money, well then... yeah you bet your ass that's a different situation and the "worth" of pursuing is directly proportional to how much he is making. Doesn't matter if it is his own hardware or not.

Like why do you think who owns the hardware even matters? Do you really think the legality changes if I rent a GPU vs use my own? That doesn't make any sense.

▲ marssaxman 4 days ago | parent [-]

In terms of copyright law, it matters very much whether Joe Schmoe is using his own copy of the data for his own purposes, or whether he is making more copies and distributing them to other people.

If the AI companies were letting people download copies of their training data, copyright law would certainly have something to say about that. But no: once they download the training data, they keep it, and they don't share it.

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

  > using his own copy of the data

Yes? That is a different thing? I guess we can keep moving the topic until we're talking about the same topic if you want. But honestly, I don't want to have that kind of conversation.

▲ marssaxman 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

How is it a different thing? Are we talking about copyright law, or not?

▲ godelski 3 days ago | parent [-]

Before you were talking about data you don't own on hardware you do. Now you're talking about data you do own.

The whole thing is about who owns the data!

▲ marssaxman 3 days ago | parent [-]

I can imagine that it would indeed be confusing if you failed to distinguish between ownership of the data and ownership of the copyright.

	▲	godelski 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure... now go back to your edgy comment and keep this in mind to see why everyone is arguing with you `>>...> To be honest, these companies already stole terabytes of data and don't even disclose their dataset, so you have to assume they'll steal and train at anything you throw at them >...> "Reading stuff freely posted on the internet" constitutes stealing now?` Literally everyone was talking about data ownership and you just said "I can download it, so it is fair game on my hardware." Let's say you didn't intend to say that. Well that doesn't matter, that's what a lot of people heard and you failed to clarify when pressed on this. So yeah, I think you're doing gymnastics https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45066376

▲ derangedHorse 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It doesn’t seem like anyone is moving topics here. Where do you see the topic being moved?

	▲	godelski 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		"His own hardware" != "his own copy of the data" My entire comment was that the entire issue is about data ownership. Doesn't even matter if you have a copy of the data. It matters how that copy was obtained. There's no reason to then discuss if your usage violates the terms of a license if you obtained the data illegally. You're already in the illegal territory lol. Having data != legally having obtained data