Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is “theft” misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they’re extracting general patterns and concepts - the “Bob Dylan-ness” or “Hemingway-ness” - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in “vector space”. When generating new content, the AI isn’t recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it’s learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It’s more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others’ work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can’t be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there’s precedent for this kind of use being considered “transformative” and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it’s understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it “theft” is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn’t make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
Even if you come to the conclusion that these models should be allowed to “learn” from copyrighted material, the issue is that they can and will reproduce copyrighted material.
They might not recreate a picture of Mickey Mouse that exists already, but they will draw a picture of Mickey Mouse. Just like I could, except I’m aware that I can’t monetize it in any way. Well, new Mickey Mouse.
This is an issue for the AI user though. And I do agree that needs to be more conscious in people’s minds. But I think time will change that. Perhaps when the photo camera came out there were some shmucks that took pictures of people’s artworks and claimed it as their own because the novelty of the technology allowed that for a bit, but eventually those people are properly differentiated from people properly using it.
If they can base their business on stealing, then we can steal their AI services, right?
Pirating isn’t stealing but yes the collective works of humanity should belong to humanity, not some slimy cabal of venture capitalists.
Also, ingredients to a recipe aren’t covered under copyright law.
ingredients to a recipe may well be subject to copyright, which is why food writers make sure their recipes are “unique” in some small way. Enough to make them different enough to avoid accusations of direct plagiarism.
E: removed unnecessary snark
In what country is that?
Under US law, you cannot copyright recipes. You can own a specific text in which you explain the recipe. But anyone can write down the same ingredients and instructions in a different way and own that text.
Keep in my that “ingredients to a recipe” here refers to the literal physical ingredients, based on the context of the OP (where a sandwich shop owner can’t afford to pay for their cheese).
While you can’t copyright a recipe, you can patent the ingredients themselves, especially if you had a hand in doing R&D to create it. See PepsiCo sues four Indian farmers for using its patented Lay’s potatoes.
No, you cannot patent an ingredient. What you can do - under Indian law - is get “protection” for a plant variety. In this case, a potato.
That law is called Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The farmer in this case being PepsiCo, which is how they successfully sued these 4 Indian farmers.
Farmers’ Rights for PepsiCo against farmers. Does that seem odd?
I’ve never met an intellectual property freak who didn’t lie through his teeth.
I think there is some confusion here between copyright and patent, similar in concept but legally exclusive. A person can copyright the order and selection of words used to express a recipe, but the recipe itself is not copy, it can however fall under patent law if proven to be unique enough, which is difficult to prove.
So you can technically own the patent to a recipe keeping other companies from selling the product of a recipe, however anyone can make the recipe themselves, if you can acquire it and not resell it. However that recipe can be expressed in many different ways, each having their own copyright.
Yes, that’s exactly the point. It should belong to humanity, which means that anyone can use it to improve themselves. Or to create something nice for themselves or others. That’s exactly what AI companies are doing. And because it is not stealing, it is all still there for anyone else. Unless, of course, the copyrightists get there way.
Unlike regular piracy, accessing “their” product hosted on their servers using their power and compute is pretty clearly theft. Morally correct theft that I wholeheartedly support, but theft nonetheless.
Is that how this technology works? I’m not the most knowledgeable about tech stuff honestly (at least by Lemmy standards).
There’s self-hosted LLMs, (e.g. Ollama), but for the purposes of this conversation, yeah - they’re centrally hosted, compute intensive software services.
How do you feel about Meta and Microsoft who do the same thing but publish their models open source for anyone to use?
Well how long to you think that’s going to last? They are for-profit companies after all.
I mean we’re having a discussion about what’s fair, my inherent implication is whether or not that would be a fair regulation to impose.
Those aren’t open source, neither by the OSI’s Open Source Definition nor by the OSI’s Open Source AI Definition.
The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don’t have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).
Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.
They are model-available if anything.
For the purposes of this conversation. That’s pretty much just a pedantic difference. They are paying to train those models and then providing them to the public to use completely freely in any way they want.
It would be like developing open source software and then not calling it open source because you didn’t publish the market research that guided your UX decisions.
You said open source. Open source is a type of licensure.
The entire point of licensure is legal pedantry.
And as far as your metaphor is concerned, pre-trained models are closer to pre-compiled binaries, which are expressly not considered Open Source according to the OSD.
Tell me you’ve never compiled software from open source without saying you’ve never compiled software from open source.
The only differences between open source and freeware are pedantic, right guys?
I hear you about the cheese bro.
Here’s an experiment for you to try at home. Ask an AI model a question, copy a sentence or two of what they give back, and paste it into a search engine. The results may surprise you.
And stop comparing AI to humans but then giving AI models more freedom. If I wrote a paper I’d need to cite my sources. Where the fuck are your sources ChatGPT? Oh right, we’re not allowed to see that but you can take whatever you want from us. Sounds fair.
Not to fully argue against your point, but I do want to push back on the citations bit. Given the way an LLM is trained, it’s not really close to equivalent to me citing papers researched for a paper. That would be more akin to asking me to cite every piece of written or verbal media I’ve ever encountered as they all contributed in some small way to way that the words were formulated here.
Now, if specific data were injected into the prompt, or maybe if it was fine-tuned on a small subset of highly specific data, I would agree those should be cited as they are being accessed more verbatim. The whole “magic” of LLMs was that it needed to cross a threshold of data, combined with the attentional mechanism, and then the network was pretty suddenly able to maintain coherent sentences structure. It was only with loads of varied data from many different sources that this really emerged.
This is the catch with OPs entire statement about transformation. Their premise is flawed, because the next most likely token is usually the same word the author of a work chose.
And that’s kinda my point. I understand that transformation is totally fine but these LLM literally copy and paste shit. And that’s still if you are comparing AI to people which I think is completely ridiculous. If anything these things are just more complicated search engines with half the usefulness. If I search online about how to change a tire I can find some reliable sources to do so. If I ask AI how to change a tire it would just spit something out that might not even be accurate and I’d have to search again afterwards just to make sure what it told me was even accurate.
It’s just a word calculator based on information stolen from people without their consent. It has no original thought process so it has no way to transform anything. All it can do is copy and paste in different combinations.
Did the experiment.
Zero shock factor. It showed an empty google search result. I have screenshots for the deniers. I don’t know what you think will happen, but unless you’re asking it some super vague question, where the answer would be unanimous across the board, it’s not going to spit out some shock factor quote that you can google. What a waste of an ‘experiment’.
Bro this was 6 months ago lol. Models have gotten way better since then. I made this comment when Google was still telling people to put glue on pizza. Which, if you did re-input the answer, would take you to a reddit post. Almost all of them would take you to a reddit post back then.
Can you just give us the TLDE?
AI Chat bots copy/paste much of their “training data” verbatim.
It’s not a breach of copyright or other IP law not to cite sources on your paper.
Getting your paper rejected for lacking sources is also not infringing in your freedom. Being forced to pay damages and delete your paper from any public space would be infringement of your freedom.
I mean, you’re not necessarily wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still stealing, which was my point. Just because laws haven’t caught up to it yet doesn’t make it any less of a shitty thing to do.
When I analyze a melody I play on a piano, I see that it reflects the music I heard that day or sometimes, even music I heard and liked years ago.
Having parts similar or a part that is (coincidentally) identical to a part from another song is not stealing and does not infringe upon any law.
You guys are missing a fundamental point. The copyright was created to protect an author for specific amount of time so somebody else doesn’t profit from their work essentially stealing their deserved revenue.
LLM AI was created to do exactly that.
The original source material is still there. They just made a copy of it. If you think that’s stealing then online piracy is stealing as well.
Well they make a profit off of it, so yes. I have nothing against piracy, but if you’re reselling it that’s a different story.
But piracy saves you money which is effectively the same as making a profit. Also, it’s not just that they’re selling other people’s work for profit. You’re also paying for the insane amount of computing power it takes to train and run the AI plus salaries of the workers etc.
It’s not stealing, its not even ‘piracy’ which also is not stealing.
Copyright laws need to be scaled back, to not criminalize socially accepted behavior, not expand.
I’m pretty sure that it’s true that citing sources isn’t really relevant to copyright violation, either you are violating or not. Saying where you copied from doesn’t change anything, but if you are using some ideas with your own analysis and words it isn’t a violation either way.
With music this often ends up in civil court. Pretty sure the same can in theory happen for written texts, but the commercial value of most written texts is not worth the cost of litigation.
The ingredient thing is a bit amusing, because that’s basically how one of the major fast food chains got to be so big (I can’t remember which one it was ATM though; just that it wasn’t McDonald’s). They cut out the middle-man and just bought their own farm to start growing the vegetables and later on expanded to raising the animals used for the meat as well.
Wait… they actually STOLE the cheese from the cows?
😆
So, is the Internet caring about copyright now? Decades of Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent, Piratebay, etc, but we care now because it’s a big corporation doing it?
It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.
There is a kernal of validity to your point, but let’s not pretend like those things are at all the same. The difference between copyright violation for personal use and copyright violation for commercialization is many orders of magnitude.
People don’t like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.
Personally for me its about the double standard. When we perform small scale “theft” to experience things we’d be willing to pay for if we could afford it and the money funded the artists, they throw the book at us. When they build a giant machine that takes all of our work and turns it into an automated record scratcher that they will profit off of and replace our creative jobs with, that’s just good business. I don’t think it’s okay that they get to do things like implement DRM because IP theft is so terrible, but then when they do it systemically and against the specific licensing of the content that has been posted to the internet, that’s protected in the eyes of the law
Kill a person, that’s a tragedy. Kill a hundred thousand people, they make you king.
Steal $10, you go to jail. Steal $10 billion, they make you Senator.
If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.
If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.
No, no it doesn’t.
It might become legal, or tolerated, or the laws might become unenforceable.
But that doesn’t make it good, on the contrary, it makes it even worse.
That’s their point.
No shit
What about companies who scrape public sites for training data but then publish their trained models open source for anyone to use?
That feels a lot more reasonable and fair to me personally.
If they still profit from it, no.
Open models made by nonprofit organisations, listing their sources, not including anything from anyone who requests it not to be included (with robots.txt, for instance), and burdened with a GPL-like viral license that prevents the models and their results from being used for profit… that’d probably be fine.
And also be useless for most practical applications.
We’re talking about LLMs. They’re useless for most practical applications by definition.
And when they’re not entirely useless (basically, autocomplete) they’re orders of magnitude less cost-effective than older almost equivalent alternatives, so they’re effectively useless at that, too.
They’re fancy extremely costly toys without any practical use, that thanks to the short-sighted greed of the scammers selling them will soon become even more useless due to model collapse.
I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.
They throw the book at us
Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.
You tell me, was it people suing companies or companies suing people?
Is a company claiming it should be able to have free access to content or a person?
Just a point of clarification: Copyright is about the right of distribution. So yes, a company can just “download the Internet”, store it, and do whatever TF they want with it as long as they don’t distribute it.
That the key: Distribution. That’s why no one gets sued for downloading. They only ever get sued for uploading. Furthermore, the damages (if found guilty) are based on the number of copies that get distributed. It’s because copyright law hasn’t been updated in decades and 99% of it predates computers (especially all the important case law).
What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works. Which is kinda what’s going on but also not really. Let’s say that someone asks ChatGPT to write a few paragraphs of something in the style of Stephen King… His “style” isn’t even cooyrightable so as long as it didn’t copy his works word-for-word is it even a derivative? No one knows. It’s never been litigated before.
My guess: No. It’s not going to count as a derivative work. Because it’s no different than a human reading all his books and performing the same, perfectly legal function.
It’s more about copying, really.
That’s why no one gets sued for downloading.
People do get sued in some countries. EG Germany. I think they stopped in the US because of the bad publicity.
What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works.
That theory is just crazy. I think it’s already been thrown out of all these suits.
The Internet is not a person
People on Lemmy. I personally didn’t realize everyone here was such big fans of copyright and artificial scarcity.
The reality is that people hate tech bros (deservedly) and then blindly hate on everything they like by association, which sometimes results in dumbassery like everyone now dick-riding the copyright system.
The reality is that people hate the corporations using creative peoples works to try and make their jobs basically obsolete and they grab onto anything to fight against it, even if it’s a bit of a stretch.
I’d hate a world lacking real human creativity.
Me too, but real human creativity comes from having the time and space to rest and think properly. Automation is the only reason we have as much leisure time as we do on a societal scale now, and AI just allows us to automate more menial tasks.
Do you know where AI is actually being used the most right now? Automating away customer service jobs, automatic form filling, translation, and other really boring but necessary tasks that computers used to be really bad at before neural networks.
And some automation I have no problems with. However, if corporations would rather use AI than hire creatives, the creatives will have to look for other work and likely won’t have a space to express their creativity, not at work nor during leisure time (no time, exhaustion, etc.). Something should be done so it doesn’t go there. Preemptively. Not after everything’s gone to shit. I don’t see the people defending AI from the copyright stuff even acknowledging the issue. Holding up the copyright card, currently, is the easiest way to try an avoid this happening.
I thought the larger point was that they’re using plenty of sources that do not lie in the public domain. Like if I download a textbook to read for a class instead of buying it - I could be proscecuted for stealing. And they’ve downloaded and read millions of books without paying for them.
And they've downloaded and read millions of books without paying for them.Do you have a source on that?
Most AI models used Books3 as part of their dataset which is a collection of pirated books. Here are a few articles talking about it:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/20/24224450/anthropic-copyright-lawsuit-pirated-books-ai
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/books3-ai-meta-llama-pirated-books/675063/
Thank you
If ChatGPT was free I might see their point but it’s not so no. If you’re making money from someone’s work you should pay them.
{{labeling it “theft” is both legally and technically inaccurate.}} Well, my understanding is that humans have intelligence, humans teach and learn from previous/other people’s work and make progressive or create new work/idea using their own intelligence. AI/machine doesn’t have intelligence from the start, doesn’t have own intelligence to create/make things. It just copies, remixes, and applies the knowledge, and many personalities and all expressions have been teached. So “theft” is technically accurate.
This take is correct although I would make one addition. It is true that copyright violation doesn’t happen when copyrighted material is inputted or when models are trained. While the outputs of these models are not necessarily copyright violations, it is possible for them to violate copyright. The same standards for violation that apply to humans should apply to these models.
I entirely reject the claims that there should be one standard for humans and another for these models. Every time this debate pops up, people claim some province based on ‘intelligence’ or ‘conscience’ or ‘understanding’ or ‘awareness’. This is a meaningless argument because we have no clear understanding about what those things are. I’m not claiming anything about the nature of these models. I’m just pointing out that people love to apply an undefined standard to them.
We should apply the same copyright standards to people, models, corporations, and old-school algorithms.
Honestly, if this somehow results in regulators being like “fuck it, piracy is legal now” it won’t negatively impact me in any way…
Corporations have abused copyright law for decades, they’ve ruined the internet, they’ve ruined media, they’ve ruined video games. I want them to lose more than anything else.
The shitty and likely situation is they’ll be like “fuck it corporate piracy is legal but individuals doing it is still a crime”.
deleted by creator
I don’t view free-use models as open-source. Open-source means I can rebuild it from scratch and I can’t because I don’t know what the training data is, or have access to it.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.
The idea of a “teensy” exception so that we can “advance” into a dark age of creative pointlessness and regurgitated slop, where humans doing the fun part has been made “unnecessary” by the unstoppable progress of “thinking” machines, would be hilarious, if it weren’t depressing as fuck.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.
I feel like that purpose has already been undermined by various changes to copyright law since its inception, such as DMCA and lengthening copyright term from 14 years to 95. Freedom to remix existing works is an important part of creative expression which current law stifles for any original work that releases in one person’s lifespan. (Even Disney knew this: the animated Pinocchio movie wouldn’t exist if copyright could last more than 56 years then)
Either way, giving bots the ‘right’ to remix things that were just made less than a year ago while depriving humans the right to release anything too similar to a 94 year old work seems ridiculous on both ends.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression
…within a capitalistic framework.
Humans are creative creatures and will express themselves regardless of economic incentives. We don’t have to transmute ideas into capital just because they have “value”.
I’d agree, but here’s one issue with that: we live in reality, not in a post-capitalist dreamworld.
Creativity takes up a lot of time from the individual, while a lot of us are already working two or even three jobs, all on top of art. A lot of us have to heavily compromise on a lot of things, or even give up our dreams because we don’t have the time for that. Sure, you get the occasional “legendary metal guitarist practiced so much he even went to the toilet with a guitar”, but many are so tired from their main job, they instead just give up.
Developing game while having a full-time job feels like crunching 24/7, while only around 4 is going towards that goal, which includes work done on my smartphone at my job. Others just outright give up. This shouldn’t be the normal for up and coming artists.
That’s why we should look for good solutions to societal problems, and not fall back on bad “solutions” just because that’s what we’re used to. I’m not against the idea of copyright existing. But copyright as it exists today is stifling and counterproductive for most creative endeavors. We do live in reality, but I don’t believe it is the only possible reality. We’re not getting to Star Trek Space Communism™ anytime soon and honestly I like the idea of owning stuff. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t concrete steps we can and should take right now in the present reality to make things better. And for that to happen we need to get our priorities and philosophies straight. Philosophies which for me include a robust public commons, the inability to own ideas outright, and the ability to take and transform art and culture. Otherwise, we’re just falling into the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” mindset but for art and culture.
Honestly, that’s why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.
One issue is, many open source AI also tries to ape whatever the big ones are doing at the moment, with the most outrageous example is one that generates a timelapse for AI art.
There’s also tools that especially were created with artists in mind, but they’re less popular due to the average person cannot use it as easily as the prompter machines, nor promise the end of “people with fake jobs” (boomers like generative AI for this reason).
Sorry buddy, but that capitalistic framework is where we all have to exist for the forseeable future.
Giving corporations more power is not going to help us end that.
Can’t say you’re wrong, however the forseeable future is less than two centuries, and our failure to navigate our way out of capitalism towards something more mutualistic figures largely into our imminent doom.
I don’t think they’re advocating for more capitalism.
You’re not wrong.
The kind of art humanity creates is skewed a lot by the need for it to marketable, and then sold in order to be worth doing.
But copyright is better than nothing, and this exemption would straight up be even worse than nothing.
Humans are indeed creative by nature, we like making things. What we don’t naturally do is publish, broadcast and preserve our work.
Society is iterative. What we build today, we build mostly out of what those who came before us built. We tell our versions of our forefathers’ stories, we build new and improved versions of our forefather’s machines.
A purely capitalistic society would have infinite copyright and patent durations, this idea is mine, it belongs to me, no one can ever have it, my family and only my family will profit from it forever. Nothing ever improves because improving on an old idea devalues the old idea, and the landed gentry can’t allow that.
A purely communist society immediately enters whatever anyone creates into the public domain. The guy who revolutionizes energy production making everyone’s lives better is paid the same as a janitor. So why go through all the effort? Just sweep the floors.
At least as designed, our idea of copyright is a compromise. If you have an idea, we will grant you a limited time to exclusively profit from your idea. You may allow others to also profit at your discretion; you can grant licenses, but that’s up to you. After the time is up, your idea enters the public domain, and becomes the property and heritage of humanity, just like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Others are free to reproduce and iterate upon your ideas.
I think you have your janitor example backwards. Spending my time revolutionizing energy productions sounds much more enjoyable than sweeping floors. Same with designing an effective floor sweeping robot.
That’s the reason we got copyright, but I don’t think that’s the only reason we could want copyright.
Two good reasons to want copyright:
- Accurate attribution
- Faithful reproduction
Accurate attribution:
Open source thrives on the notion that: if there’s a new problem to be solved, and it requires a new way of thinking to solve it, someone will start a project whose goal is not just to build new tools to solve the problem but also to attract other people who want to think about the problem together.
If anyone can take the codebase and pretend to be the original author, that will splinter the conversation and degrade the ability of everyone to find each other and collaborate.
In the past, this was pretty much impossible because you could check a search engine or social media to find the truth. But with enshittification and bots at every turn, that looks less and less guaranteed.
Faithful reproduction:
If I write a book and make some controversial claims, yet it still provokes a lot of interest, people might be inclined to publish slightly different versions to advance their own opinions.
Maybe a version where I seem to be making an abhorrent argument, in an effort to mitigate my influence. Maybe a version where I make an argument that the rogue publisher finds more palatable, to use my popularity to boost their own arguments.
This actually happened during the early days of publishing, by the way! It’s part of the reason we got copyright in the first place.
And again, it seems like this would be impossible to get away with now, buuut… I’m not so sure anymore.
—
Personally:
I favor piracy in the sense that I think everyone has a right to witness culture even if they can’t afford the price of admission.
And I favor remixing because the cultural conversation should be an active read-write two-way street, no just passive consumption.
But I also favor some form of licensing, because I think we have a duty to respect the integrity of the work and the voice of the creator.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!” I think anyone who compares OpenAI to pirates (favorably) is unwittingly helping the next set of feudal tech lords build a wall around the entirety of human creativity, and they won’t realize their mistake until the real toll booths open up.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!”
I’ve never done this. But I have taken lessons from people for instruments, listened to bands I like, and then created and played songs that certainly are influences by all of that. I’ve also taken a lot of art classes, and studied other people’s painting styles and then created things from what I’ve learned, and said “look at what I made!” Which is far more akin to what AI is doing that what you are implying here.
So what if its closer? Its still not an accurate description, because thats not what AI does.
Because what they are describing is just straight up theft, while what I describes is so much closer to how one trains and ai. I’m afraid that what comes out of this ai hysteria is that copyright gets more strict and humans copying style even becomes illegal.
Well that all doesn’t matter much. If AI is used to cause harm, it should be regulated. If that frustrates you then go get the laws changed that allow shitty companies to ruin good ideas.
I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.
I’m not even sure you’re responding to my post.
I’m sympathetic to the reflexive impulse to defend OpenAI out of a fear that this whole thing results in even worse copyright law.
I, too, think copyright law is already smothering the cultural conversation and we’re potentially only a couple of legislative acts away from having “property of Disney” emblazoned on our eyeballs.
But don’t fall into their trap of seeing everything through the lens of copyright!
We have other laws!
We can attack OpenAI on antitrust, likeness rights, libel, privacy, and labor laws.
Being critical of OpenAI doesn’t have to mean siding with the big IP bosses. Don’t accept that framing.
Their framing of how AI works is grossly inaccurate. I just corrected that.
I personally am down for this punch-up between Alphabet and Sony. Microsoft v. Disney.
🍿
Surely it’s coming. We have The music publishing cartel vs Suno already.
While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.
Exactly, there are blatant examples of direct plagiarism spat out by these LLMs.
Operating system have been used to commit copyright infringement much more effectively and massively by copying copyrighted material verbatim.
OS vendors are not liable, the people who make and distribute the copies are. The same applies for Word processors, image editors etc.
You are for a massive expansion on the scope of copyright limiting the freedoms of the general public not just AI corps or tech corps.
Those analogies don’t make any sense.
Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?
Yes they do.
Which is why you want an agreement to make them liable for copyright infringement (plagiarism is not a crime itself).
You would have to pay for distributing copyright infringing material whether created by AI or humans or just straight up copied.
I don’t care if AI will be used,commercially or otherwise.
I am worried about further limitations being placed upon the general public (not “creatives”/publishers/AI corps) either by reinterpretation of existing laws, amendment of existing laws or legislation of brand new rights (for copyright holders/creators, not the general public).
I don’t even care who wins, the “creatives” or tech/AI, just that we don’t get further shafted.
Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.
It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.
I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.
I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.
Using your logic, the one making the copy in a word processor is the person typing, and the one making the copy in this LLM is OpenAI
Nope. The output is based on the users input in both cases.
No, the output in a word processor is explicitly created by the user, whereas the output created by a LLM is based on the training data OpenSI scraped and influenced by a user prompt
You need a very specific prompt to make a copy. Even to just be similar enough you have to put the proper input and try a lot of repetitions.
That’s why the right holders are going after the training which included copying by the AI corpos.
In your dream land right holders could just prompt the AI till it spit something close to their work and sue the AI corp for that. Repeat as needed ; infinite money glitch.
Obviously it doesn’t work that way.
OS vendors aren’t selling¹ what users copy into the clipboard.
¹ Well, Microsoft probably is, especially with that recall bullshit, and I don’t trust Google and Apple not to do it either… but if any of them is doing it they should get fined into bankruptcy.
Neither are AI vendors. We have locally hosted AI models and they don’t contain what they output. You can tell by the actual size.
Fully agree. I understand why there are many technological doomers out there and I think AI may be the most deserving of a critical eye. But the immense benefits of being able to manufacture intelligence is undeniable. That NECESSITATES the AI being able to observe anything and everything in the world that it can. That’s how any known intelligence has ever learned and there’s no scientific basis for an intelligence coming into existence knowing everything about the world without it ever being taught about it.
Now I’ve heard a lot of criticism of AI. Some really legitimate concerns about their place in the future (and ours). As well as the ethics of this important technology originating in the private hands of mega corps that historically have not had our best interest at heart. But the VAST majority of criticism has been about how it’s not useful or is just an avenue for copyright abuse. Which at best, is just completely missing the point. But at worst, is the thinly vailed protests of people made very uncomfortable that the status quo is being upset.
