• realChem@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah I’ve heard a lot of people talking about the copyright stuff with respect to image generation AIs, but as far as I can see there’s no fundamental reason that text generating AIs wouldn’t be subject to the same laws. We’ll see how the lawsuit goes though I suppose.

    • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Neither are infringement. Artists attempting to bully platforms into not training on them doesn’t change the fact that training on information would be black and white fair use if it didn’t have absolutely nothing in common with copyright infringement. Learning from copyrighted material is not distributing it.

      If the court doesn’t just ignore the law, which has nothing that could theoretically be interpreted to support the idea that training is infringement in any way, this case will be the precedent that sets AI training free.

      And you, as an individual, should want that. Breaking the ability to learn from prior art is still literally guaranteed to disenfranchise the overwhelming majority of creators in all formats, because there are massive IP holders who have the data sets to build generative AI and produce unlimited “free” content, while no individual will be able to do the same because they’ll have nothing to train on. If you think Disney has a monopoly now, wait until they can train AI on 100 years of 95% of TV and movies and no one else can make AI.

      • realChem@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I hear what you’re saying, although I don’t much appreciate being told what I should want the outcome to be.

        My own wants notwithstanding, I know copyright law is notoriously thorny – fair use doubly so – and I’m no lawyer. I’d be a little bit surprised if NYT decides to raise this suit without consulting their own lawyers though, so it stands to reason that if they do indeed decide to sue then there are at least some copyright lawyers who think it’ll have a chance. As I said, we’ll see.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair use isn’t relevant.

          Copyright law does not prevent learning from copyrighted material. There is no potential infringement for fair use to be applied to. Nothing is being copied and shared.

          If they’re suing, they’re doing it because they think they can manipulate a ruling that does not in any way follow the law and because the benefit if they can do so is huge, not because any intelligent rational human being can read the law and possibly interpret anything as infringement. It’s not ambiguous in any way. There can’t be infringement if you don’t distribute someone else’s work.

          • realChem@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            It seems like you’re working under the core assumption that the trained model itself, rather than just the products thereof, cannot be infringing?

            Generally if someone else wants to do something with your copyrighted work – for example your newspaper article – they need a license to do so. This isn’t only the case for direct distribution, it includes things like the creation of electronic copies (which must have been made during training), adaptations, and derivative works. NYT did not grant OpenAI a license to adapt their articles into a training dataset for their models. To use a copyrighted work without a license, you need to be using it under fair use. That’s why it’s relevant: is it fair use to make electronic copies of a copyrighted work and adapt them into a training dataset for a LLM?

            You also seem to be assuming that a generative AI model training on a dataset is legally the same as a human learning from those same works. If that’s the case then the answer to my question in the last paragraph is definitely, “yes,” since a human reading the newspaper and learning from it is something that, as you say, “any intelligent rational human being” would agree is fine. However, as far as I know there’s not been any kind of ruling to support the idea that those things are legally equivalent at this point.

            Now, if you’d like to start citing code or case law go ahead, I’m happy to be wrong. Who knows, this is the internet, maybe you’re actually a lawyer specializing in copyright law and you’ll point out some fundamental detail of one of these laws that makes my whole comment seem silly (and if so I’d honestly love to read it). I’m not trying to claim that NYT is definitely going to win or anything. My argument is just that this is not especially cut-and-dried, at least from the perspective of a non-expert.

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Electronic copies are copies. Copying the story is a copy. You need a license to copy someone’s work. You unconditionally do not need a license to learn from it and use that knowledge for any purpose you wish. There are no laws that could possibly be interpreted to require this.

              Derivative works are copies using substantial portions of someone else’s original work. You need a license to adapt a book into a movie because you’re copying their whole story, characters, etc. You don’t need a license to tell a similar story from a similar idea because you are not. Literally everything that has been created in the past 10,000 years is built on the ideas of others. Everything is a derivative work if you think learning from an article is. You’re allowed to summarize copyrighted material and present your own interpretation of it to others. You’re allowed to do so commercially. It isn’t copying.

              The New York Times owns their articles. They own their specific packaging of the facts inside. They don’t and unconditionally can’t own the facts themselves. Nothing they own is being copied. Having files in memory is not copyright infringement. It’s the literally guaranteed result of publishing anything digitally.

              There is nothing that OpenAI is doing that any law in existence even loosely implies might need a license.

              • FlowVoid
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You don’t need a license to learn from a story, but if learning requires you first to make an enduring copy of the story on your laptop then you could be violating copyright.

                And neural nets generally require a local enduring copy of their training data, which means they too could be violating copyright.

                  • FlowVoid
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No. For example, most people who pirate software, movies, and music do not sell anything. But they are still violating copyright.

          • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            But there is no one learning from it. It serves as a building block / source material to build these LLMs. I feel like the fact that it’s called learning gives folks the impression that it’s similar to what a human would do.

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              “AI” isn’t intelligent, but that has literally zero relevance.

              Seeing copyrighted material and forming takeaways does not in any way resemble copyright infringement. It’s not the fact that a human is doing so that matters. It’s the fact that no sort of analysis constitutes copying or copyright infringement.

              • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                But they aren’t forming take aways from it. They literally used that material to build this system. I also cannot just go around and take arbitrary data from anywhere and use it to build my own program. There are licenses attached to it and I have to be mindful of who’s work I can use to build my system and who’s I can’t use without explicit permission.

                Building this system isn’t looking at other folks material and forming take aways from it. It’s literally using that material as input for building the system.

                • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes they are.

                  And yes, you absolutely can use entirely New York Times articles as research material to write your own article based on conclusions from them. You can’t outright copy paste their articles, but you can freely use information learned from their articles however the hell you want.

                  It’s the exact same thing. “AI” looks at their articles, integrates information, and does not retain the actual article. That has no similarity in any way to copyright infringement.

                  • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Well. When I copy and paste source code into my program and compile it it also doesn’t retain the actual code. It’s still not allowed.

                    If I on the other hand read source code, remember and reapply it in a sort of similar way later on then that’s totally fine. But that’s not what OpenAI did there. There wasn’t a human involved that read the articles and then used that knowledge to adjust the LLM.

                    There question i would have is where is the line there? Does that mean that as soon as there is some automated process that uses the data it’s fine?

                    E.g. could I have a script that reads all NYT articles, extracts interesting information and provides them in a different format to users?

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is similar to what humans do. The principal difference is that the AI tech we have (as of yet) can’t learn how to learn: Those systems come with pre-determined rules to learn, we come with pre-determined rules on how to learn how to learn.

              And yes AIs abstract the knowledge they get fed. What they have trouble with is not forgetting how to play soccer when learning how to cook spaghetti as without the capacity to learn to learn they can’t vary encoding of information between topics and everything gets mushed together, new information blindly overwriting unrelated old information.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Since the DMCA, just the circumvention of copyright protection measures is a crime. It’s stupid, but the point is that even if training AI on the data is completely legal, if the data was protected with something that is also used to protect copyright, and you needed to circumvent that to get access even for legitimate purposes, you’ve broken a law.

            Copyright has been made obtuse and stupid and damaging to society by big IP holders, it’s just now there’s big corps on the “infringing” side too. This will get interesting.