I hope not. Not a big fan of propriety AI (local AI all the way, and I hope people leak all these models, both code and weights), but fuck copyright and fuck capitalism which makes automation seem like a bad thing when it shouldn’t be ;p nya
Yes, because AI and automation will definitely not be on the side of big capital, right? Right?
Be real. The cost of building means they’re always going to favour the wealthy. At best right now were running public copies of the older and smaller models. Local AI will always be running behind the state of the art big proprietary models, which will always be in the hands of the richest moguls and companies in the world.
No leaks necessary; there are a number of open-source LLM’s available:
https://github.com/Hannibal046/Awesome-LLM#open-llm
The key differentiator between these and proprietary offerings will always be the training data. Large amounts of high-quality data will be more difficult for an individual or a small team to source. If lawsuits like this one block ingestion of otherwise publicly-available data, we could have a future where copyright holders charge AI builders for access to their data. If that happens, “knowledge” could become exclusive to various AI platforms much the same way popular shows or movies are exclusive to streaming platforms.
the opensource models are so bad that they give you responses out of context. they have completely random responses.
NPR reported that a “top concern” is that ChatGPT could use The Times’ content to become a “competitor” by “creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper’s staff.”
That’s something that can currently be done by a human and is generally considered fair use. All a language model really does is drive the cost of doing that from tens or hundreds of dollars down to pennies.
To defend its AI training models, OpenAI would likely have to claim “fair use” of all the web content the company sucked up to train tools like ChatGPT. In the potential New York Times case, that would mean proving that copying the Times’ content to craft ChatGPT responses would not compete with the Times.
A fair use defense does not have to include noncompetition. That’s just one factor in a fair use defense and the other factors may be enyon their own.
I think it’ll come down to how “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes” and “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;” are interpreted by the courts. Do we judge if a language model by the model itself or by the output itself? Can a model itself be uninfringing and it still be able to potentially produce infringing content?
The model is intended for commercial use, uses the entire work and creates derivative works based on it which are in direct competition.
Everyone wants they’re piece of the pie. I just want AI to evolve to the point we can use it to create real innovation. But we’ll never get there with all these greedy removed.
So you’d rather some of the world’s biggest corporations get to monopolise AI profits (meanwhile pushing out some very dodgy ‘creations’ including b******* text masquerading as truth) while the people whose actual creative labour it is built on get nothing? Who’s the real greedy ones here? Seems to me it’s the likes of Google and OpenAI.
When little people torrent they get prosecuted, when Google steals all the text they can get their hands on, it gets legalised…
Not a strong case for NYT, but I’ve long believed that AI is vulnerable to copyright law and likely the only thing to stop/slow it’s progression. Given the major issues with all AI and how inequitable and bigoted they are and their increasing use, I’m hoping this helps to start conversations about limiting the scope of AI or application.
It’s pretty apparent that AI developers are training their applications using stolen images and data.
This was always going to end up in the courts.
A human brain is just the summation of all the content it’s ever witnessed, though, both paid and unpaid. There’s no such thing as artwork that is completely 100% original, everything is inspired by something else we’re already familiar with. Otherwise viewers of the art would just interpret it as random noise. There has to be some amount of familiarity for a viewer to identify with it.
So if someone builds an atom-perfect artificial brain from scratch, sticks it in a body, and shows it around the world, should we expect the creator to pay licensing fees to the owners of everything it looks at?
No.
I am so fucking sick of this “AI art is just doing what humans do" bullshit. It is so utterly devoid of any kind of critical thinking that it sounds like a 100% bad faith argument every time it comes up.
AI can only give you a synthesis of exactly what you feed it. It can’t use its life experience, its upbringing, its passions, its cultural influences, etc to color its creativity and thinking, because it has none and it isn’t thinking. Two painters who study and become great artists, and then also both take time to study and replicate the works of Monet can come away from that experience with vastly different styles. They’re not just puking back a mashup of Monet’s collected works. They’re using their own life experience and passions to color their experience of Impressionism.
That’s something an AI can never do, and it leaves the result hollow and meaningless.
There is so so so so so much more to human experience, life experience, and just being alive than simply absorbing “content.”
No offense, but I get the sense that you don’t actually know how ML works and you’re just familiar with pop science descriptions of it. Am I wrong?
It’s an incredibly bold claim to say that a human brain is doing something an AI could never do. That is a very antiquated notion, to the point that I would say it’s 100% devoid of any critical thinking.
Now if you’re arguing that there is a supernatural plane of some kind that cannot be measured in any way, and is fully responsible for our consciousness, then that’s a different story, there’s nothing I can say to change your mind.
There is so so so so so much more to human experience, life experience, and just being alive than simply absorbing “content.”
That’s the thing though, it’s all the same “content” to a living brain. Your brain doesn’t distinguish between your lived experiences and watching cat videos, the experience of watching those videos is also a lived experience.
I know it’s tempting to say humans (or living creatures) are special and unique in their ability to experience emotions and consciousness etc, but the reality is, you’re a biological machine. You take inputs via various senses, chemical reactions happen throughout your body, and the illusion of memory and experience is created. Now either prove to me that this phenomenon is not replicable in a lab or virtual setting, or get off your high horse and join the actual discussion that needs to happen.
deleted by creator
Now either prove to me that this phenomenon is not replicable in a lab or virtual setting, or get off your high horse and join the actual discussion that needs to happen
Ah yes, let me just give you all the definitive answers to all the metaphysical and philosophical debates that have happened throughout the entirety of human history so you don’t have to think about the actual real world ramifications your art theft bot
So you acknowledge there is a valuable discussion to be had here. Thank you. I would like to have that discussion, would you? Or would you like to stick with the dismissive and arrogant schtick?
No, there isn’t a valuable discussion to be had here. I’m not looking to “debate” you, or anyone else. AI is causing real, material harm in the world right now, not because it does the same thing humans do, but because of the greedy, heartless, scum-sucking capitalists and grifters behind it, driving it, and deciding the gibberish they pump out is good enough to destroy entire industries and livelihoods so they can maximize their bottom lines. And I’m not looking to find “nuance” in the dystopian hellscape this is creating.
A human brain is just the summation of all the content it’s ever witnessed, though, both paid and unpaid.
But copyright is entirely artificial. The deal is that the law says you have to pay when you copy a bunch of copyrighted text and reprint it into new pages of a newly bound book. The law also says you don’t have to pay when you are giving commentary on a copyrighted work, or parodying a copyrighted work, or drawing inspiration from a copyrighted work to create something new but still influenced by that copyrighted work. The question for these lawsuits is whether using copyrighted works to train these models and generate new text (or art or music) is infringement of those artificial, human-made, legal rights.
As an example, sound recording copyrights only protect the literal copying of a sound recording. Someone who mimics that copyrighted recording, no matter how perfectly, doesn’t actually infringe on the recording copyright (even if they might infringe on the composition copyright, a separate and distinct copyright). But a literal duplication process of some kind would be infringement.
We can have a debate whether the law draws the line in the correct places, or whether the copyright regime could be improved, and other normative discussion what what the rules should be in the modern world, especially about whether the rules in one area (e.g., the human brain) are consistent with the rules in another area (e.g., a generative AI model). But it’s a separate discussion from what the rules currently are. Under current law, the human brain is currently allowed to perform some types of copying and processing and remixing that some computer programs are not.
I agree with the summary of the situation in your first paragraph.
Your second paragraph about sound mimickry, as far as I’m aware, is not accurate. Musicians have been ordered to pay for much less than rote mimickry, even simple things like using the same melody or beat as a backing track have been ruled as infringement. In the US, at least.
And I agree with the 3rd paragraph.
So I believe my original question still stands: should an artificial brain be required to pay licensing fees for everything it sees?
So if someone builds an atom-perfect artificial brain from scratch, sticks it in a body, and shows it around the world, should we expect the creator to pay licensing fees to the owners of everything it looks at?
That’s unrelated to an LLM. An LLM is not a synthetic human brain. It’s a computer program and sets of statistical data points from large amounts of training data to generate outputs from prompts.
If we get real general-purpose AI some day in the future, then we’ll need to answer those sorts of questions. But that’s not what we have today.
The discussion is about law surrounding AI, not LLMs specifically. No we don’t have an AGI today (that we know of), but assuming we will, we will probably still have the laws we write today. So regardless of when it happens, we should be discussing and writing laws today under the assumption it will eventually happen.
This thread is about ChatGPT, an LLM. It is not a general purpose AI.
I’m saying the discussion about AI law. You can’t responsibly have a discussion about law around LLMs without considering how it would affect future, sufficiently advanced AI.
This comparison doesn’t make sense to me. If the person then makes money off it: yes.
Otherwise the question would be if copyright law should be abolished entirely. E.g. if I create a new news portal with content copied form other source, would that be okay then?
You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.
If the person then makes money off it: yes.
Every idea you’ve ever profited from was inspired by something you saw in the past. That’s my point. There are no ideas that exist entirely within a vacuum, they all stem from something else, we just draw a line arbitrarily and say “this idea is too much like that other idea”. But if you combine 3 other ideas into something that is sufficiently non-obvious (which is entirely relative) then we call it “novel” and “original”.
I think the line should probably be, either it’s a tool and you need to license any work it references, OR it’s conscious, has rights, gets paid, and is a person. I think most tech companies would much rather stay in the former camp, not having to answer any ethical dilemmas if they don’t have to. But on the other hand, the first company to make something that people consider actually “conscious” will make history.
You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.
Sounds like you have about 100 years of philosophical discussion, AI research, and scifi to catch up on 😄.
It feels like you are making a computer program out to be more than it actually is right now. At the same time this all isn’t about what that program is doing. It’s about how it was built.
Just because it’s weird to you doesn’t make it any less valid.
As a species we sit at the threshold of artificial life, created by us. Seems silly to think that such a monumental jump would not be accompanied by substantial changes in our made up rules of engagement.
Might be a fundamental difference in opinion. I don’t see us anywhere near anything related to artificial life.
What they’ve built there is a product, a computer program and they used other folks data to build it without getting their permission. I also cannot go and just copy and paste source code from all over the internet to build my program. There are licenses attached to it that determine what you can or can’t do with it.
I feel like just because the term “learning” is involved people no longer view it as simply building or programming a system. Which it is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
The result, experts speculate, could be devastating to OpenAI, including the destruction of ChatGPT’s dataset and fines up to $150,000 per infringing piece of content.
If the Times were to follow through and sue ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, NPR suggested that the lawsuit could become “the most high-profile” legal battle yet over copyright protection since ChatGPT’s explosively popular launch.
This speculation comes a month after Sarah Silverman joined other popular authors suing OpenAI over similar concerns, seeking to protect the copyright of their books.
As of this month, the Times’ TOS prohibits any use of its content for “the development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system.”
In the memo, the Times’ chief product officer, Alex Hardiman, and deputy managing editor Sam Dolnick said a top “fear” for the company was “protecting our rights” against generative AI tools.
the memo asked, echoing a question being raised in newsrooms that are beginning to weigh the benefits and risks of generative AI.
Watch out bot, the Times might come for you next…
While my gut reaction is “yeah, make them pay for this art and these articles they’re stealing to train the model” - I don’t think copyright is going to actually win the creators any money for their work this time.
I’d rather it remains a wild west. and copyright loses.
Sam Altman stated that the cost of training GPT-4 was more than $100 million, so I think they’ll survive this (just ask daddy Microsoft for more money). Not sure if the figure includes cost of obtaining the training data though.
It’s pretty funny if the thing that would prevents AI from taking over human jobs is the copyright law though.
It is funny, bureaucracy definitely slows humanity progression
