Change the law so you can't train on copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder.

>harassed

This just in, anonymous forum user SHOCKINGLY HARASSED, PELTED with HIGH-SPEED ideas and arguments, his positions BRUTALLY ATTACKED and PUBLICLY DEFACED.

No, I pointed out that your attempt to straw man my comment was so overly broad that it also describes collecting child pornography. Why not engage specifically with what I'm saying?

Yes, they're objecting to people training on data they don't have the right to, not just the GET request as you suggest.

If you distribute child porn, that is a crime. But if you crawl every image on the web and then train a model that can then synthesize child porn, the current legal model apparently has no concept of this and it is treated completely differently.

Generally, I am more interested in how this effects copyright. These AI companies just have free reign to convert copyrighted works into the public domain through the proxy of over-trained AI models. If you release something as GPL, they can strip the license, but the same is not true of closed-source code which isn't trained on.

Indeed, and neither is that what people are objecting to with regard to AI training data.

I'm not whining in this case, just pointing out "they gave it out for free" is completely false, at the very least for the GNU types. It was always meant to come with plenty of strings attached, and when those strings were dodged new strings were added (GPL3, AGPL).

If I had a photographic memory and I used it to replicate parts of GPLed software verbatim while erasing the license, I could not excuse it in court that I simply "learned from" the examples.

Some companies outright bar their employees from reading GPLed code because they see it as too high of a liability. But if a computer does it, then suddenly it is a-ok. Apparently according to the courts too.

If you're going to allow copyright laundering, at least allow it for both humans and computers. It's only fair.

We spread free software for multiple purposes, one of them being the free software ethos. People using that for training proprietary models is antithetical to such ideas.

It's also an interesting double standard, wherein if I were to steal OpenAI's models, no AI worshippers would have any issue condemning my action, but when a large company clearly violates the license terms of free software, you give them a pass.

Precisely. Nothing is truly original. To talk as though there's an abstract ownership over even an observation of the thing that force people to pay rent to use.. well artists definitely don't pay to whoever invented perspective drawings, programmers don't pay the programming language's creator. People don't pay newton and his descendants for making something that makes use of gravity. Copyright has always been counterproductive in many ways.

To go into details though, under copyright law there's a clause for "fair use" under a "transformative" criteria. This allows things like satire, reaction videos to exist. So long as you don't replicate 1-to-1 in product and purpose IMO it's qualifies as tasteful use.

What the fuck? People also need to pay to access that creative work if the rights owner charges for it, and they are also committing an illegal act if they don't. The LLM makers are doing this illegal act billions of times over for something approximating all creative work in existence. I'm not arguing that creative's make things in a vacuum, this is completely besides the point.

> Meta clearly enganged in copyright enfringement when they torrented books that they hadn't purchased. That is enfringement already before they started training on the data. That doesn't make the training itself enfringement though.

What kind of bullshit argument is this? Really? Works created using illegally obtained copyrighted material are themselves considered to be infringing as well. It's called derivative infringment. This is both common sense and law. Even if not, you agree that they infringed on copyright of something close to all copyrighted works on the internet and this sounds fine to you? The consequences and fines from that would kill any company if they actually had to face them.

China is doing human gene editing and embryo cloning too, we should get right on that. They're harvesting organs from a captive population too, we should do that as well otherwise we might fall behind on transplants & all the money & science involved with that. Lots of countries have drafts and mandatory military service too. This is the zero-morality darwinian view, all is fair in competition. In this view, any stealing that China or anyone does is perfectly fine too because they too need to compete with the US.

The "China will win the AI race" if we in the West (America) don't is an excuse created by those who started the race in Silicon Valley. It's like America saying it had to win the nuclear arms race, when physicists like Oppenheimer back in the late 1940s were wanting to prevent it once they understood the consequences.

It can be based on reason and law without being clear cut - that situation applies to most of reason and law.

> I don't think that training data is inherently "theft", any more than inspiration would be even before generative AI. There's probably not an animator alive that wasn't at least partially inspired by the works of Disney ...

Sure, but you can reason about it, such as by using analogies.