Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reality

13 (65%)

Universe

4 (20%)

The World

3 (15%)

Total Members Voted: 20

[Strongpoint]

Overall I think it should be established the legality of AI using copyrighted material in their training. 

Using copyrighted material in training has nothing to do with copyright. It is so against the spirit of what copyright is that I will be amazed if there will be limitations... Then again, big companies are known for pushing absurd laws.

AI outputs, on the other hand, can be copyright infringement and should be regulated somehow.

[McTraveller]

Remember kids: statistics never lie - but you can make them say whatever you want!

Miles per accident isn't necessarily the correct metric anyway: ideally you want to filter by severity of the accident.  There are a ton more accidents in manual vehicles, but a much higher percentage of minor ones.

If I recall from NHTSA, it's something like 400k miles between accidents of "property damage or greater" severity. I think it was 4 million miles between each "severe injury or greater", then 40 (or maybe it was 400?) million miles between each fatal accident.

I'd be curious to see if the ratio of fatal to "any" accident is the same or better for Tesla, but I haven't gone digging that up yet.

Basically the premise is: Teslas are better in "general" driving, but humans are better than any AI on the market today for "unusual situations" because humans are more adaptable.  But there is no question the computers are better for "routine" than humans.

[jipehog]

Certainly, if you have any data either way please share, it makes argument sound way better. Keep in mind that not everyone care about data, and we tend to tolerate human over machine error.

Overall I think it should be established the legality of AI using copyrighted material in their training.

Sampling and remixing are protected, as is listening to as much music or looking at as much art as you want before coming up with your own, even your own take on the same style. So this is a solved question.

AI is not a human. If you using copyrighted material to build your product it is a problem.

[Criptfeind]

Certainly, if you have any data either way please share, it makes argument sound way better. Keep in mind that not everyone care about data, and we tend to tolerate human over machine error.

Just to pop into this, your own data doesn't support your conclusion to be honest, Tesla autopilot is not an autonomous car.

Edit: To be clear though I do think that you make a good point to be made about acceptable levels of mistakes in AI as compared to humans though. Although I'm currently unaware of where that ratio is, both for chat programs and automatic vehicles. And of course it doesn't mean that the person you were replying too is right either.

[Maximum Spin]

AI is not a human. If you using copyrighted material to build your product it is a problem.

That's not really how it works.

[Starver]

AI is not a human. If you using copyrighted material to build your product it is a problem.

There are already allowances (details may vary by jurisdiction) for something being substantively different from the things that they're derived from. Even without licence or acknowledgement (or being allowable as parody/etc).

And if an AI takes various intangible elements from source materials and builds a novel combination from the bits, then it's probably arguably as fair-game as any creative person.

AIs, as we currently have them, don't have intrinsic bias towards "liking" particular lyrics, etc (without biases added by their human creators who might prejudge what they should look for, which is a distinct AI fail at this level of development) and thus the kinds of arguments you'd use against them are different from those that (e.g.) Ed Sheran has had to defend against. Of course it will have 'heard' any particular piece that went into its training corpus, but it should also be being asked to make something that isn't a copy[1] and therefore be able to avoid anything that a human might (innocently?) bring to the game.

Depending upon the aggregating method/material, it might have to establish for itself that pretty much every tune has some tone progressions, a form of beat and other general acoustic signatures (however that deals with potential combined sources like Tubular Bells, Bohemian Rhapsody, Vindaloo, Play Dead, Believe, The Frog Chorus and All You Need Is Love), but almost certainly not as clean-cut as any musicologist would identify. It could't even play "One Tune To The Words Of Another" (unless it was fed on actual musical notation and specifically told to intermix the two... but that'd be hardly subtle).


[1] The algorithm that omits this is easy: "Make me something that sounds very like a Europop song" <AI regurgtates an existing Europop song and reports 100% fitness>... In fact, a proper fitness algorithm should Adversarially establish exact matches (or entire swathes of being identical) as a severe penalty.

[jipehog]

@Criptfeind. It shows that when people aren't using autopilot there are more accidents.. otherwise its good conversation starter.

I think that fully L5 autonomous vehicle are bigger challenge that most of the things we hear post ChatGPT. I also think that convenience is the single greatest driver for consumer technology adoption, even with L3 autonomous vehicle you can redeem the time waste on the daily tedious and monotonous traffic congestion (there are already push to allow watching media while you are at it). As regulation rollout everywhere and adoption trends suggest that in 10 years most new vehicles will have L3+ capabilities.. we all know that money talk.

Btw there were already pilots for autonomous minibus (they didn't even bother to put a driver seat) as far as five years ago. I assume that these vehicles which preform in more familiar slower speed metropolitan areas are safer, also they were advertised to use network connection to share data thus a one vehicle faces an obstacle can warn other or share its solution which is another safety feature. I think that these will pioner the backbone of traffic management infrastructure which will eventually help us all optimize route planning

@Starver, I am not talking about AI using sampling, I am talking about your AI product being trained built on copyrighted material in the first place. If you build your product on copyrighted information that is a problem.

Otherwise, on the AI front I think that the biggest things that we have yet to talked about is hosting. I think that hosting solution, especially today when there is shortage of chips, could be a major bottleneck as it take much longer to establish new server farms.

[Maximum Spin]

@Starver, I am not talking about AI using sampling, I am talking about your AI product being trained built on copyrighted material in the first place. If you build your product on copyrighted information that is a problem.

Again, it may be "a problem", but that's not how copyright law works.

[McTraveller]

Indeed: when a person hears a song and hums it, they didn’t copy the song. They “learned” the song. There is no meaningful difference in training an AI and a person reading / listening / watching training material. It is not a bit-for-bit copy, it really is a kind of “impression.”

Put another way: learning is not copyright infringement.

[dragdeler]

Agreed, not on principle, but with how the modern language models actually work. And f intellectual property anyway. What if big coal patents nuclear fusion tomorrow we are just going to collectively agree they withold that from us, because this is a legal state?! I know it's a silly example but the point stands.


I love AI because the thing exposes our butts naked even better than covid did.

Afraid of AI overtaking the last bastion of "human work", artistry?
Well wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't inherently undeserving of life unless they got money right?
Afraid of AI destroying humanity?
Well wouldn't be such a problem if there were no arsenal it could turn against us right?

[jipehog]

Indeed: when a person hears a song and hums it, they didn’t copy the song. They “learned” the song. There is no meaningful difference in training an AI and a person reading / listening / watching training material. It is not a bit-for-bit copy, it really is a kind of “impression.”

Put another way: learning is not copyright infringement.

A computer isn't alive, its a tool you feed data input which it process. If the data used is unlicensed/copyrighted that is a problem, especially if you are trying to make money out of it(yet another problem, who hold the copyright?). Since AI is relatively new there are still ongoing debate about various aspects related to it, but there are already lawsuits underway to clear the way. Furthermore it has led big companies to change their term of use and restrict API use requiring money for what was preciously free.

Personally, I support expanding IP frameworks to address the problem posed by AI. 

EDIT: Btw, iirc Itali's ban on ChatGPT came about after a womans personal medical photos found its way into AI data training packet and her inability to remove it. If there are no protection it means corporation\government can data mine any personal data\conversation online and do with it as they will.

[Maximum Spin]

A computer isn't alive, its a tool you feed data input which it process. If the data used is unlicensed/copyrighted that is a problem, especially if you are trying to make money out of it(yet another problem, who hold the copyright?). Since AI is relatively new there are still ongoing debate about various aspects related to it, but there are already lawsuits underway to clear the way. Furthermore it has led big companies to change their term of use and restrict API use requiring money for what was preciously free.

Personally, I support expanding IP frameworks to address the problem posed by AI.

That is not how copyright law works. There is currently no problem. The relevant copyright law is already well-established. There's no legal bearing to saying "a computer isn't alive"; it's just perfectly irrelevant. You can read the actual state of international copyright law on the subject of derivative works, if you like, instead of pontificating.

ETA: If it helps, one key relevant doctrine you could read about is called "fair use".

[Rolan7]

Well there's definitely a *problem*, as jipehog's edit points out (and also, obviously).

I'm sympathetic to dragdeler's point that intellectual property ought to be shared, but only because all property should be shared.  The instinct to dismiss intellectual property specifically as unworthy of protection is something I disagree with.  Just because something's cheap to distribute doesn't mean the creator deserves less monetization.  (And sometimes it *feels* more like "I can pirate this, therefore it should be free").  Working under capitalism as we currently must, I think it's important to un-patent life-saving medicines while *protecting* the income stream of entertainers.

Back to the copyright issue though: If I make an algorithm that takes youtube videos and horizontally reverses them, and then "autonomously" reposts them, I have "transformed" the work.  I'm also a piece of shit and my channel my bot's channel should be taken down for copyright abuse.  Deciding whether something is fair use is inherently subjective, considering mitigating factors.  "I put it through an algorithm, it wasn't me" isn't a magic bullet.

"AI art" is a fucking menace to actual artists. (There's my vitriol/side here)

[Strongpoint]

Back to the copyright issue though: If I make an algorithm that takes youtube videos and horizontally reverses them, and then "autonomously" reposts them, I have "transformed" the work

The key part here is reposting not sufficiently transformed work, not the algorithm.

Using AI to draw copyrighted characters and then distributing them breaks copyright laws. Teaching the AI to do so has NOTHING to do with copyright laws

"AI art" is a fucking menace to actual artists.

Photography is also a fucking menace to actual artists. Very few will pay for a photorealistic portrait of themselves

[Starver]

@Starver, I am not talking about AI using sampling, I am talking about your AI product being trained built on copyrighted material in the first place. If you build your product on copyrighted information that is a problem.

Again, it may be "a problem", but that's not how copyright law works.

Indeed. Or else nobody should be allowed to be creative in any way whatsoever unless they were a lifelong hermit. No "on the shoulders of giants", or anything like that.

What we're doing is putting AIs through a School Of Life (maybe with overtones of a degree level study of <Foo> Appreciation with more emphasis on course materials than any professorial opinions being imparted.

If ChatGPT effectively read Reddit (or, rather, web-pages that Reddit users mentioned) to build up its LLM of the world, then it 'sampling' conceptual information from many people who might consider (indeed, websites often do assert) their literal output as copyright, but the point is that it's much the same as ChatGPT being like a user who reports that they think that they recall once having heard something (often quite distorted, and at least sometimes plain wrong due to no contextual understanding beyond what words often sit near to what other words, albeit cleverly so), rather than straight out going out and pasting what some source says and claiming it as its own 'thoughts' (or doing what happened with the Shetland Times and Shetland News, and probably still happens plenty today). It is so unable to directly cite sources that, if effectively asked to provide citations, it constructs something that looks sufficiently citation-like but isn't actually a practical one at all. (If such a chatbot were additionally required to provide its true sources for everything it spewed out, then it'd be hard to do less than narrow it down to thousands of 'sources' for how it constructed a hundred-word output, and much of that would be more to do with why it did/did not make use of the Oxford Comma or go with its choice of "isn't"/"is not". The fact there is expected to be board-cordinates of a certain form in a chess-question's answer is nothing that can be claimed to be an Intellectual Property, and much of the rest of the output is just a glorified Markovian chain that reflects statistically what words should be returned given any particular query.

A 'popBot' might similarly have the experience (compressed) of having heard every week's Top 40 blare out of the radio for a number of decades, which does not in itself pose a copyright issue. And it isn't using didetic recall/replay of any of those songs to perform any actual identifiable non-original works. (The "Liam Gallagher" voice in the 'AIsis' song is a separate issue, in the lines of DeepFake, but of dubious prior coverage when it comes to performance rights.)


All of which is to say that there may be issues (like with on-demand re-release of classic TV/radio content, the available sources might or might not be effectively licenced/denied for use in a situation which wasn't even considered by anyone, decades ago, in ways that technically may need untangling/renegotiating) with exactly how the corpus was 'fed', but we can't just assume that it was an illegal torrent-dump or bootlegging operation. From then on, is the dissassembly and reassembly into a new product really something that would have a George Harrison/Chiffons case to answer? Not as far as the AI is concerned, and its 'parents' may be able to successfully argue not. If only because it would shut out much non-'copying' technical processes. But these are the things that lawyers may be making money (and/or reputations) over, as times pass. At least until there are fully-accredited AI lawyers!