Technology

Unpopular opinion but I don't see how it could have been different.

• There's no way the west would give AI lead to China which has no desire or framework to ever accept this.
• Believe it or not but transformers are actually learning by current definitions and not regurgitating a direct copy. It's transformative work - it's even in the name.
• This is actually good as it prevents market moat for super rich corporations only which could afford the expensive training datasets.

This is an absolute win for everyone involved other than copyright hoarders and mega corporations.

calm down everyone. its only legal for parasitic mega corps, the normal working people will be harassed to suicide same as before.

its only a crime if the victims was rich or perpetrator was not rich.

So authors must declare legally "this book must not be used for AI training unless a license is agreed on" as a clause in the book purchase.

Yeah I have a bash one liner AI model that ingests your media and spits out a 99.9999999% accurate replica through the power of changing the filename.

cp

Out performs the latest and greatest AI models

Fuck the AI nut suckers and fuck this judge.

Bangs ~~gabble~~ gavel.

Gets sack with dollar sign

“Oh good, my laundry is done”

I am training my model on these 100,000 movies your honor.

brb, training a 1-layer neural net so i can ask it to play Pixar films

It's pretty simple as I see it. You treat AI like a person. A person needs to go through legal channels to consume material, so piracy for AI training is as illegal as it would be for personal consumption. Consuming legally possessed copywritten material for "inspiration" or "study" is also fine for a person, so it is fine for AI training as well. Commercializing derivative works that infringes on copyright is illegal for a person, so it should be illegal for an AI as well. All produced materials, even those inspired by another piece of media, are permissible if not monetized, otherwise they need to be suitably transformative. That line can be hard to draw even when AI is not involved, but that is the legal standard for people, so it should be for AI as well. If I browse through Deviant Art and learn to draw similarly my favorite artists from their publically viewable works, and make a legally distinct cartoon mouse by hand in a style that is similar to someone else's and then I sell prints of that work, that is legal. The same should be the case for AI.

But! Scrutiny for AI should be much stricter given the inherent lack of true transformative creativity. And any AI that has used pirated materials should be penalized either by massive fines or by wiping their training and starting over with legally licensed or purchased or otherwise public domain materials only.

This was a preliminary judgment, he didn't actually rule on the piracy part. That part he deferred to an actual full trial.

The part about training being a copyright violation, though, he ruled against.

“I torrented all this music and movies to train my local ai models”

Can I not just ask the trained AI to spit out the text of the book, verbatim?