←back to thread

451 points croes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
mattxxx ◴[] No.43962976[source]
Well, firing someone for this is super weird. It seems like an attempt to censor an interpretation of the law that:

1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law

My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against. When I look at the litany of derivative fantasy novels, it's obvious they're not all fully independent works.

Since AI is and will continue to be so useful and transformative, I think we just need to acknowledge that our laws did not accomodate this use-case, then we should change them.

replies(19): >>43963017 #>>43963125 #>>43963168 #>>43963214 #>>43963243 #>>43963311 #>>43963423 #>>43963517 #>>43963612 #>>43963721 #>>43963943 #>>43964079 #>>43964280 #>>43964365 #>>43964448 #>>43964562 #>>43965792 #>>43965920 #>>43976732 #
palmotea[dead post] ◴[] No.43963168[source]
[flagged]
jobigoud ◴[] No.43963464[source]
We are talking about the rights of the humans training the models and the humans using the models to create new things.

Copyright only comes into play on publication. It's only concerned about publication of the models and publication of works. The machine itself doesn't have agency to publish anything at this point.

replies(5): >>43963564 #>>43964130 #>>43964131 #>>43964631 #>>43965405 #
1. moralestapia ◴[] No.43965405[source]
>Copyright only comes into play on publication.

Nope.

You have a right to not publish any work that you own. This is protected by Copyright law.

Copyright covers you from the moment you create some sort of original work (in a tangible medium).