this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
436 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59295 readers
4310 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://nom.mom/post/121481

OpenAI could be fined up to $150,000 for each piece of infringing content.https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/report-potential-nyt-lawsuit-could-force-openai-to-wipe-chatgpt-and-start-over/#comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BURN@lemmy.world 164 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Good

AI should not be given free reign to train on anything and everything we’ve ever created. Copyright holders should be able to decide if their works are allowed to be used for model training, especially commercial model training. We’re not going to stop a hobbyist, but google/Microsoft/openAI should be paying for materials they’re using and compensating the creators.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 112 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

While that’s understandable, I think it’s important to recognize that this is something where we’re going to have to treat pretty carefully.

If a human wants to become a writer, we tell them to read. If you want to write science fiction, you should both study the craft of writing ranging from plots and storylines to character development to Stephen King’s advice on avoiding adverbs. You also have to read science fiction so you know what has been done, how the genre handles storytelling, what is allowed versus shunned, and how the genre evolved and where it’s going. The point is not to write exactly like Heinlein (god forbid), but to throw Heinlein into the mix with other classic and contemporary authors.

Likewise, if you want to study fine art, you do so by studying other artists. You learn about composition, perspective, and color by studying works of other artists. You study art history, broken down geographically and by period. You study DaVinci’s subtle use of shading and Mondrian’s bold colors and geometry. Art students will sit in museums for hours reproducing paintings or working from photographs.

Generative AI is similar. Being software (and at a fairly early stage at that), it’s both more naive and in some ways more powerful than human artists. Once trained, it can crank out a hundred paintings or short stories per hour, but some of the people will have 14 fingers and the stories might be formulaic and dull. AI art is always better when glanced at on your phone than when looked at in detail on a big screen.

In both the cases of human learners and generative AI, a neural network(-like) structure is being conditioned to associate weights between concepts, whether it’s how to paint a picture or how to create one by using 1000 words.

A friend of mine who was an attorney used to say “bad facts make bad law.” It means that misinterpretation, over-generalization, politicization, and a sense of urgency can make for both bad legislation and bad court decisions. That’s especially true when the legislators and courts aren’t well educated in the subjects they’re asked to judge.

In a sense, it’s a new technology that we don’t fully understand - and by “we” I’m including the researchers. It’s theoretically and in some ways mechanically grounded in old technology that we also don’t understand - biological neural networks and complex adaptive systems.

We wouldn’t object to a journalism student reading articles online to learn how to write like a reporter, and we rightfully feel anger over the situation of someone like Aaron Swartz. As a scientist, I want my papers read by as many people as possible. I’ve paid thousands of dollars per paper to make sure they’re freely available and not stuck behind a paywall. On the other hand, I was paid while writing those papers. I am not paid for the paper, but writing the paper was part of my job.

I realize that is a case of the copyright holder (me) opening up my work to whoever wants a copy. On the other other hand, we would find it strange if an author forbade their work being read by someone who wants to learn from it, even if they want to learn how to write. We live in a time where technology makes things like DRM possible, which attempts to make it difficult or impossible to create a copy of that work. We live in societies that will send people to prison for copying literal bits of information without a license to do so. You can play a game, and you can make a similar game. You can play a thousand games, and make one that blends different elements of all of them. But if you violate IP, you can be sued.

I think that’s what it comes down to. We need to figure out what constitutes intellectual property and what rights go with it. What constitutes cultural property, and what rights do people have to works made available for reading or viewing? It’s easy to say that a company shouldn’t be able to hack open a paywall to get at WSJ content, but does that also go for people posting open access to Medium?

I don’t have the answers, and I do want people treated fairly. I recognize the tremendous potential for abuse of LLMs in generating viral propaganda, and I recognize that in another generation they may start making a real impact on the economy in terms of dislocating people. I’m not against legislation. I don’t expect the industry to regulate itself, because that’s not how the world works. I’d just like for it to be done deliberately and realistically and with the understanding that we’re not going to get it right and will have to keep tuning the laws as the technology and our understanding continue to evolve.

[–] hypnotoad__@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Sorry this is a bit too level-headed for me, can you please repeat with a bullhorn, and use 4-letter words instead? I need to know who to blame here.

[–] chaircat@lemdro.id 15 points 1 year ago

This is an astonishingly well written, nuanced, and level headed response. Really on a level I'm not used to seeing on this platform.

[–] PlushySD@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Well written sir.

[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Both an AI and an art student are a complex web of weights that take inputs and returns an output. Agreed.

But the inputs are vastly different. An art student has all the inputs of every moment leading up to the point of putting paint to canvas. Emotion, hunger, pain, and every moment that life has thrown at them. All of them lead to very different results. Every art piece affects the subsequent ones.

The AI on the other hand is purely derivative. It’s only ever told about pre-existing art and a brief interpretation of it. It does not feel emotion. It does not worry about paying its bills or falling in love. It builds a map of weights once and that is that. Every input repeated however many times will yield exactly the same output.

And yes, you have the artists who are professional plagiarists, making hand-painted Picasso imitations of someone’s chihuahua for $20 over the internet. But they’re not mass producing derivative work by the thousands.

I fully agree with the shit-in, shit-out sentiment, and researchers should be free to train their models of whatever data they need.

But monetising their models, that by definition are generating derivative works is another matter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Swervish@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Not trying to argue or troll, but I really don't get this take, maybe I'm just naive though.

Like yea, fuck Big Data, but...

Humans do this naturally, we consume data, we copy data, sometimes for profit. When a program does it, people freak out?

edit well fuck me for taking 10 minutes to write my comment, seems this was already said and covered as I was typing mine lol

[–] QHC@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

It's just a natural extension of the concept that entities have some kind of ownership of their creation and thus some say over how it's used. We already do this for humans and human-based organizations, so why would a program not need to follow the same rules?

[–] relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It might be nice if we reserve some things just for humans 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That doesn't sit well to me. I agree that, to some extent, artists and writers should be compensated for their work, even if it just means those interested in creating training sets have to buy a copy of each work they intend to use in a training set so long as it can't be legally acquired for free (similar to how a human has to buy, """buy""" and/or borrow a book if they want to study it).

However, at the same time, this mindset opens the door to actual racism, not the silly "hurr, my skin color's better than your skin color" bullshit we call racism, but the much nastier, "there are actual differences between you and I which I will use to justify my poor behavior" kinda racism; and when your academic partner has the potential to outclass you in nearly every way (assuming most general AI would decide to work in STEM fields), it's much easier to justify your bigotry. That bigotry may then be learned by the AI and spit back at you; but this time, the accusations of inferiority may truly be justified.

I mean, think of it this way, what if someone created a general AI that displays all the characteristics of a human to the point of being seemingly indistinguishable from one? Should they not be considered a person? Should they not then be given the same rights as any other person?

Maybe it's not possible to create a general AI, but maybe we eventually encounter aliens; the universe is a big place after all. Should they not also be given the same rights as a person?

The AI problem is so much larger than I think most people realize. The people making these are trying to create life, even if they don't realize it. Just because it's a program or amalgamation of programs that run on silicon and copper doesn't mean it's any less alive than an amalgamation of programs running on chemical reactions and electric impulses. It's just a different kind of alive, like how a car that uses electricity and a car that uses internal combustion are both cars, they just have different ways of doing the same thing. That's not to say current AI is anywhere near as intelligent as a dog, cat or human, but it has the potential to one day become truly intelligent.

It's also easy to assume that these are all issues that will be solved in the future, but we have plenty of examples even now of how kicking the can down the street isn't really an intelligent strategy. Look at how well that can-kicking is turning out in regards to climate change, wealth inequality, healthcare, LGBT+ and BIPOC rights, etc. Regarding AI, I believe there are a lot of hang-ups that we as humans have, whether conscious or unconscious, when it comes to tolerating beings unlike us (we're still struggling with the skin-color racism); and that it's better to start working on them now than to wait until Mr. Roboto has his chassis smashed by a bunch of neo-luddites who insist that he's just a bunch of circuits formed into a crude imitation of humanity.

Edit: you could also make the argument that choosing not to extend personhood to an intelligent machine opens the door to prejudice and bigotry in regards to transhumanism. At some point, we as humans will start modifying ourselves, via either meat or circuitry, and when that happens, there'll be plenty of people trying to argue that Joe isn't a human because he's had his whole brain replaced with a computer. It doesn't matter if the surgeons replaced his brain step-by-step to insure Joe himself wasn't lost in the process; they'll argue that since the brain is what makes Joe, "Joe", then he must not be human because his brain is no longer organic.

Edit 2: Also, I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement. I've seen way too many people saying that AI should never, ever be treated as a person.

[–] adrian783@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

this is a super-reach, why don't we deal with AI indistinguishable from human when it happens.

right now what we have is a language model that is very distinguishable from human so it doesn't get any human considerations.

if a monkey or chicken created an artwork, it doesn't have copyrights, because it's not human either.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lily33@lemm.ee 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

No.

  • A pen manufacturer should not be able to decide what people can and can't write with their pens.
  • A computer manufacturer should not be able to limit how people use their computers (I know they do - especially on phones and consoles - and seem to want to do this to PCs too now - but they shouldn't).
  • In that exact same vein, writers should not be able to tell people what they can use the books they purchased for.

.

We 100% need to ensure that automation and AI benefits everyone, not a few select companies. But copyright is totally the wrong mechanism for that.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A pen is not a creative work. A creative work is much different than something that’s mass produced.

Nobody is limiting how people can use their pc. This would be regulations targeted at commercial use and monetization.

Writers can already do that. Commercial licensing is a thing.

[–] lily33@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Nobody is limiting how people can use their pc. This would be regulations targeted at commercial use and monetization.

... Google's proposed Web Integrity API seems like a move in that direction to me.

But that's besides the point, I was trying to establish the principle that people who make things shouldn't be able to impose limitations on how these things are used later on.

A pen is not a creative work. A creative work is much different than something that’s mass produced.

Why should that difference matter, in particular when it comes to the principle I mentioned?

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Why should that difference matter, in particular when it comes to the principle I mentioned?

Because creative works are rather obviously fundamentally different from physical objects, in spite of a number of shared qualities.

Like physical objects, they can be distinguished one from another - the text of Moby Dick is notably different from the text of Waiting for Godot, for instance

More to the point, like physical objects, they're products of applied labor - the text of Moby Dick exists only because Herman Melville labored to bring it into existence.

However, they're notably different from physical objects insofar as they're quite simply NOT physical objects. The text of Moby Dick - the thing that Melville labored to create - really exists only conceptually. It's of course presented in a physical form - generally as a printed book - but that physical form is not really the thing under consideration, and more importantly, the thing to which copyright law applies (or in the case of Moby Dick, used to apply). The thing under consideration is more fundamental than that - the original composition.

And, bluntly, that distinction matters and has to be stipulated because selectively ignoring it in order to equivocate on the concept of rightful property is central to the NoIP position, as illustrated by your inaccurate comparison to a pen.

Nobody is trying to control the use of pens (or computers, as they were being compared to). The dispute is over the use of original compositions - compositions that are at least arguably, and certainly under the law, somebody else's property.

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

It’s not like AI is using works to create something new. Chatgpt is similar to if someone were to buy 10 copies of different books, put them into 1 book as a collection of stories, then mass produce and sell the “new” book. It’s the same thing but much more convoluted.

Edit: to reply to your main point, people who make things should absolutely be able to impose limitations on how they are used. That’s what copyright is. Someone else made a song, can you freely use that song in your movie since you listened to it once? Not without their permission. You wrote a book, can I buy a copy and then use it to make more copies and sell? Not without your permission.

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

it’s not even close to that black and white… i’d say it’s a much more grey area:

possibly that you buy a bunch of books by the same author and emulate their style… that’s perfectly acceptable until you start using their characters

if you wrote a research paper about the linguistic and statistical information that makes an authors style, that also wouldn’t be a problem

so there’s something beyond just the authors “style” that they think is being infringed. we need to sort out exactly where the line is. what’s the extension to these 2 ideas that makes training an LLM a problem?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BURN@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Google web integrity is very much different than what I’m proposing. “Nobody” was more in relation to regulating this.

I hold the opposite opinion in that creatives (I’d almost say individuals only, no companies) own all rights to their work and can impose any limitations they’d like on (edit: commercial) use. Current copyright law doesn’t extend quite that far though.

A creative work is not a reproduceable quantifiable product. No two are exactly alike until they’re mass produced.

Your analogy works more with a person rather than a pen, in that why is it ok when a person reads something and uses it as inspiration and not a computer? This comes back around to my argument about transformative works. An AI cannot add anything new, only guess based on historical knowledge. One of the best traits of the human race is our ability to be creative and bring completely new ideas.

Edit: added in a commercial use specifier after it was pointed out that the rules over individuals would be too restrictive.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yokonzo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I can see your argument it’s just your metaphor wasn’t very strong and I think it just made things a bit confusing

[–] fkn@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You made two arguments for why they shouldn't be able to train on the work for free and then said that they can with the third?

Did openai pay for the material? If not, then it's illegal.

Additionally, copywrite and trademarks and patents are about reproduction, not use.

If you bought a pen that was patented, then made a copy of the pen and sold it as yours, that's illegal. This is the analogy of what openai is going with books.

Plagiarism and reproduction of text is the part that is illegal. If you take the "ai" part out, what openai is doing is blatantly illegal.

[–] lily33@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Just now, I tried to get Llama-2 (I'm not using OpenAI's stuff cause they're not open) to reproduce the first few paragraphs of Harry Potter and the philosophers' stone, and it didn't work at all. It created something vaguely resembling it, but with lots of made-up stuff that doesn't make much sense. I certainly can't use it to read the book or pirate it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All of the examples you listed have nothing to do with how OpenAI was created and set up. It was trained on copyrighted work, how is that remotely comparable to purchasing a pen?

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would a more apt comparison be a band posting royalties to all of their influences?

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

i think that’s a pretty good analogy that i haven’t heard before!

[–] QHC@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Computer manufacturers aren't making AI software. If someone uses an HP copier to make illegal copies of a book and then distributes those pages to other people for free, the person that used the copier is breaking the law, not the company that made the copier.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] coheedcollapse@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

With that mindset, only the powerful will have access to these models.

Places like Reddit, Google, Facebook, etc, places that can rope you into giving away rights to your data with TOS stipulations.

Locking down everything available on the Internet by piling more bullshit onto already draconian copyright rules isn't the answer and it surprises the shit out of me how quickly fellow artists, writers, and creatives piled onto the side with Disney, the RIAA, and other former enemies the second they started perceiving ML as a threat to their livelihood.

I do believe restrictions should be looked into when it comes to large organizations and industries replacing creators with ML, but attacking open ML models directly is going to result in the common folk losing access to the tools and corporations continuing to work exactly as they are right now by paying for access to locked-down ML based on content from companies who trade in huge amounts of data.

Not to mention it's going to give the giants who have been leveraging their copyright powers against just about everyone on the internet more power to do just that. That's the last thing we need.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I disagree. I think that there should be zero regulation of the datasets as long as the produced content is noticeably derivative, in the same way that humans can produce derivative works using other tools.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Hangglide@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Bullshit. If I learn engineering from a textbook, or a website, and then go on to design a cool new widget that makes millions, the copyright holder of the textbook or website should get zero dollars from me.

It should be no different for an AI.

[–] RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Agreed. Royalties are a capitalist invention

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, but what about you going into teaching engineering, and writing a text book for it that is awfully close to the ones you have used? Current AI is at a stage where it just "remixes" content it gobbled in, and not (yet) advanced enough to actually learn and derive from it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think any LLM should be required to be free to use. They can pay for extra bells and whistles like document upload but the core model must be free. They're free to make their billions, but it shouldn't be on a model built by scraping all the information of humanity for free.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

I think this is an even better solution than making them scrap it or pay everyone some token amount.

[–] TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I understand the sentiment (and agree on moral grounds) but I hink this would put us at an extreme disadvantage in the development of this technology compared to competing nations. Unless you can get all countries to agree and somehow enforce this I think it dramatically hinders our ability to push forward in this space.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)