379
submitted 1 year ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/technology@beehaw.org

In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 58 points 1 year ago

Copyright law already allows generative AI systems to scrape the internet. You need to change the law to forbid something, it isn't forbidden by default. Currently, if something is published publicly then it can be read and learned from by anyone (or anything) that can see it. Copyright law only prevents making copies of it, which a large language model does not do when trained on it.

[-] lostmypasswordanew@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

An AI model is a derivative work of its training data and thus a copyright violation if the training data is copyrighted.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago

A human is a derivative work of its training data, thus a copyright violation if the training data is copyrighted.

The difference between a human and ai is getting much smaller all the time. The training process is essentially the same at this point, show them a bunch of examples and then have them practice and provide feedback.

If that human is trained to draw on Disney art, then goes on to create similar style art for sale that isn't a copyright infringement. Nor should it be.

[-] 50gp@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

a human does not copy previous work exactly like these algorithms, whats this shit take?

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

A human can absolutely copy previous works, and they do it all the time. Disney themselves license books teaching you how to do just that. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/learn-to-draw-disney-celebrated-characters-collection-disney-storybook-artists/1124097227

Not to mention the amount of porn online based on characters from copyrighted works. Porn that is often done as a paid commission, expressly violating copyright laws.

[-] Ret2libsanity@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago
[-] Niello@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

But considering that humans do get copyright strikes when they do something too similar that should also applies to AI, doesn't matter if it's not exact.

[-] Phanatik@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

That should tell you something about how companies act. They're fine with these LLMs plagiarising content but when someone gets marginally close to their own trademarks, they get slammed.

load more comments (33 replies)
load more comments (48 replies)
load more comments (61 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
379 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37702 readers
380 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS