Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Space_Pirate_R t1_jec5lal wrote

Reply to comment by khamelean in Google Accused of Using ChatGPT Algorithms in Creating Its Neural Network by MINE_exchange

Yes, humans experience copyright works and learn from them, and that's fair use. What does that have to do with training an AI?

A person or corporation training an AI is covered by normal copyright law, which requires a license to use the work.

1

khamelean t1_jec837g wrote

How is it any different to an employee “using” the work? Corporations don’t pay licensing when an employee gets inspired by a movie they saw last night.

Why do you keep mentioning corporations? An AI could just as easily be trained by an individual. I’ve written and trained a few myself.

1

Space_Pirate_R t1_jec8j1p wrote

>Corporations don’t pay licensing when an employee gets inspired by a movie they saw last night.

The employee themselves paid to view the movie. The copyright owner set the amount of compensation knowing that the employee could retain and use the knowledge gained. No more compensation is due. This is nothing like a person or corporate entity using unlicensed copyright works to train an AI.

>Why do you keep mentioning corporations? An AI could just as easily be trained by an individual. I’ve written and trained a few myself.

Me too. I keep saying "person or corporation training an AI" to remind us that the law (and any moral judgement) applies to the person or corporate entity conducting the training, not to the AI per se, because the AI is merely a tool and is without agency of its own.

1

khamelean t1_jecbi7y wrote

“What does that have to do with a person or corporate entity training an ai?”

Training a human neural network is analogous to training an artificial neural network.

Whether the employee paid to watch a movie doesn’t matter, they could have just as easily watch something distributed for free. The transaction to consume the content is, as you said irrelevant to the corporation.

An AI consuming a copyright work is no different to a human consuming a copyright work. If that work is provided for free consumption, why would the owner of the AI have to pay for the AI to consume it?

1

Space_Pirate_R t1_jecfcfy wrote

>Training a human neural network is analogous to training an artificial neural network.

By definition, something analogous is similar but not the same. Lots of things are analogous to others, but that doesn't even remotely imply that they should be governed by the same laws and morality.

>An AI consuming a copyright work is no different to a human consuming a copyright work.

A human consuming food is no different to a dog consuming food. Yet we have vastly different laws governing human food compared to dog food. Dogs and AI are not humans, and that is the difference.

>If that work is provided for free consumption, why would the owner of the AI have to pay for the AI to consume it?

If that work is provided for free consumption, why would the owner of a building have to compensate the copyright owner to print a large high quality copy and hang it on a public wall in the lobby? The answer is that the person (not the AI) is deriving some benefit (beyond fair use) from their use of the copyrighted work, and therefore the copyright owner should be compensated.

1

khamelean t1_jecru6d wrote

The building owner is using a replication of the copyrighted work. The owner should absolutely compensate the original creator.

But the printing company that the building owner hires to print the poster doesn’t owe the original creator anything. Even though it is directly replicating copyrighted work, and certainly benefiting from doing so. If the printer were selling the copyrighted works directly then that would be a different matter and they would have to compensate the original copyright owner. So clearly context matters.

An AI doesn’t even make a replication of the original work as part of its training process.

If the AI then goes on to create a replication, or a new work that is similar enough to the original that copyright applied, and intended to use the work in a context where copyright would apply, then absolutely. That would constitute a breach of copyright.

It is the work itself that is copyrighted, not the knowledge/ability to create the work. It’s the knowledge of how to create the work which is encoded in the neural network.

Lots of people benefits from freely distributed content. Simply benefiting from it is not enough to justify requiring a license fee.

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say a few years down the line we have robot servants. I have a robotic care giver that assists me with mobility. Much as I may have a human care giver today.

If I go to the movies with my robot care giver, they will take up a seat so I would expect to pay for a ticket, just as I would for a human care giver. Do I then need to pay an extra licensing fee for the robots AI brain to actually watch the movie?

What if it’s a free screening? Should I still have to pay for the robot brain to “use” the movie?

Is the robot “using” the movie in some unique and distinct way compared to how I would be “using” the movie?

1