Comment on Music Publishers Sue Amazon-backed AI Platform for Copyright Infringement
ericisshort@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m very interested in this case and am curious to see where the courts draw the line here.
Beware of an incoming hot take - I don’t see the concept of training AI on published works as much different than a human learning from published works to go on and make their own original works. However I have definitely seen AIs straight up plagiarize before, but that seems more like a problem with the constraints of the training more than a problem with the concept of AI training entirely.
Beware of an incoming hot take - I don’t see the concept of training AI on published works as much different than a human learning from published works as long as they both go on to make their own original works.
The fact that this is considered a “hot take” is depressing.
It’s much less of a hot take for people in the tech community, but it is for many artists and creatives who feel threatened by AI’s potential to devalue what they’ve dedicated their lives to.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A standard I could see being applied is one that I think has some precedent, where if the work it is supposed to be similar to is anywhere in the training set then it’s a copyright violation. One of the valid defenses against copyright claims in court is that the defendant reasonably could have been unaware of the original work, and that seems to me like a reasonable equivalent.
AccidentalLemming@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“Similar” is a very hard concept to define, and has previously lead to silly lawsuits. youtu.be/0ytoUuO-qvg
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
You can’t copyright a style.
ericisshort@lemmy.world 11 months ago
But humans make works that are similar to other works all the time. I just hope that we set the same standards for AI violating copyright as we have for humans. There is a big difference between derivative works and those that violate copyright.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 11 months ago
Doesn’t this argument assume that AI are human? That’s a pretty huge reach if you ask me. It’s not even clear if LLM are AI, nevermind giving them human rights.
ericisshort@lemmy.world 11 months ago
No, I’m not assuming that. It’s not about concluding AI’s are human. It’s about having concrete standards on which to design laws. Setting a lower standard for copyright violation by LLMs would be like setting a lower speed limit for a self-driving car, and I don’t think it makes any logical sense. To me that would be a disappointingly protectionist and luddite perspective to apply to this new technology.
Saganastic@kbin.social 11 months ago
Machine learning falls under the category of AI. I agree that works produced by LLMs should count as derivative works, as long as they're not too similar.