Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not

FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does,

  If it’s in the same way, then why do you need the quotation marks? Even you understand that they’re not the same.

  And either way, machine learning is different from human learning in so many ways it’s ridiculous to even discuss the topic.

  AI doesn’t reproduce a work that it “learns” from

  That depends on the model and the amount of data it has been trained on. I remember the first public model of ChatGPT producing a sentence that was just one word different from what I found by googling the text (from some scientific article summary, so not a trivial sentence that could line up accidentally). More recently, there was a widely reported-on study of AI-generated poetry where the model was requested to produce a poem in the style of Chaucer, and then produced a letter-for-letter reproduction of the well-known opening of the Canterbury Tales. It hasn’t been trained on enough Middle English poetry and thus can’t generate any of it, so it defaulted to copying a text that probably occurred dozens of times in its training data.

  source
• elrik@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does

  This statement is the basis for your argument and it is simply not correct.

  Training LLMs and similar AI models is much closer to a sophisticated lossy compression algorithm than it is to human learning. The processes are not at all similar given our current understanding of human learning.

  AI doesn’t reproduce a work that it “learns” from, so why would it be illegal?

  The current Disney lawsuit against Midjourney is illustrative - literally, it includes numerous side-by-side comparisons - of how AI models are capable of recreating iconic copyrighted work that is indistinguishable from the original.

  If a machine can replicate your writing style because it could identify certain patterns, words, sentence structure, etc then as long as it’s not pretending to create things attributed to you, there’s no issue.

  An AI doesn’t create works on its own. A human instructs AI to do so. Attribution is also irrelevant. If a human uses AI to recreate the exact tone, structure and other nuances of say, some best selling author, they harm the marketability of the original works which fails fair use tests (at least in the US).

  source

  • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Even if we accept all your market liberal premise without question… in your own rhetorical framework the Disney lawsuit should be ruled against Disney.

    If a human uses AI to recreate the exact tone, structure and other nuances of say, some best selling author, they harm the marketability of the original works which fails fair use tests (at least in the US).

    Says who? In a free market why is the competition from similar products and brands such a threat as to be outlawed? Think reasonably about what you are advocating… you think authorship is so valuable or so special that one should be granted a legally enforceable monopoly at the loosest notions of authorship. This is the definition of a slippery-slope, and yet, it is the status quo of the society we live in.

    On it “harming marketability of the original works,” frankly, that’s a fiction and anyone advocating such ideas should just fucking weep about it instead of enforce overreaching laws on the rest of us. If you can’t sell your art because a machine made “too good a copy” of your art, it wasn’t good art in the first place and that is not the fault of the machine. Even big pharma doesn’t get to outright ban generic medications (even tho they certainly tried)… it is patently fucking absurd to decry artist’s lack of a state-enforced monopoly on their work. Why do you think we should extend such a radical policy towards… checks notes… tumblr artists and other commission based creators? It’s not good when big companies do it for themselves through lobbying, it wouldn’t be good to do it for “the little guy,” either. The real artists working in industry don’t want to change the law this way because they know it doesn’t work in their favor. Disney’s lawsuit is in the interest of Disney and big capital, not artists themselves, despite what these large conglomerates that trade in IPs and dreams might try to convince the art world writ large of.

    source

    • elrik@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      you think authorship is so valuable or so special that one should be granted a legally enforceable monopoly at the loosest notions of authorship

      Yes, I believe creative works should be protected as that expression has value and in a digital world it is too simple to copy and deprive the original author of the value of their work. This applies equally to Disney and Tumblr artists.

      I think without some agreement on the value of authorship / creation of original works, it’s pointless to respond to the rest of your argument.

      source

      • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think without some agreement on the value of authorship / creation of original works, it’s pointless to respond to the rest of your argument.

        I agree, for this reason we’re unlikely to convince each other of much or find any sort of common ground. I don’t think that necessarily means there’s isn’t value in discourse tho. We probably agree more than you might think. I do think authors should be compensated, just for their actual labor. Art itself is functionally worthless, I think trying to make it behave like commodities that have actual economic value through means of legislation is overreach. It would be more ethical to accept the physical nature of information in the real world and legislate around that reality. You… literally can “download a car” nowadays, so to speak.

        If copying someone’s work is so easily done why do you insist upon a system in which such an act is so harmful to the creators you care about?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Your very first statement calling my basis for my argument incorrect is incorrect lol.

    LLMs “learn” things from the content they consume. They don’t just take the content in wholesale and keep it there to regurgitate on command.

    On your last part, unless someone uses AI to recreate the tone etc of a best selling author *and then markets their book/writing as being from said best selling author, and doesn’t use trademarked characters etc, there’s no issue. You can’t copyright a style of writing.

    source

    • elrik@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’ll repeat what you said with emphasis:

      AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does

      The emphasized part is incorrect. It’s not the same, yet your argument seems to be that because (your claim) it is the same, then it’s no different from a human reading all of these books.

      Regarding your last point, copyright law doesn’t just kick in because you try to pass something off as an original (by, for ex, marketing a book as being from a best selling author). It applies based on similarity whether you mention the original author or not.

      source

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Are you taking that as me saying that they “learn in the same way” as in…by using their eyes to see it and ears to listen to it? You seem to be reading waaaaay too much into a simple sentence. AI “learns” by consuming the content. People learn by consuming the content.

        source
    • WraithGear@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      If what you are saying is true, why were these ‘AI’s” incapable of rendering a full wine glass? It “knows the concept of a full glass of water, but because of humanities social pressures, a full wine glass is the epitome of gluttony, art work did not depict a full wine glass, no matter how ai prompters demanded, it was unable to link the concepts until it was literally created for it to regurgitate it out. Its seems it doesn’t really learn, but regurgitates art out in collages of taken assets, smoothed over at the seems.

      source

      • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Copilot did it just fine

        Image

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Ask a human to draw an orc. How do they know what an orc looks like? They read Tolkien’s books and were “inspired” Peter Jackson’s LOTR.

  Unpopular opinion, but that’s how our brains work.

  source

  • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!

    .>

    <.<

    spoiler

    I was inspired by the sometimes hilarious dnd splatbooks, thank you very much.

    source