Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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
- WraithGear@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Copilot did it just fine
    
    Image
    
    source
    WraithGear@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    1 it’s not full, but closer then it was.
    
    I specifically said that the AI was unable to do it until someone specifically made a reference so that it could start passing the test so it’s a little bit late to prove much.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Bro are you a robot yourself? Does that look like a glass full of wine?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- elrik@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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
jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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
    elrik@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Because it is harmful to the creators that use the value of their work to make a living.
    
    There already exists a choice in the marketplace: creators can attach a permissive license to their work if they want to. Some do, but many do not. Why do you suppose that is?
    
    source