The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is "theft" misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they're extracting general patterns and concepts - the "Bob Dylan-ness" or "Hemingway-ness" - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in "vector space". When generating new content, the AI isn't recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it's learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It's more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others' work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can't be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there's precedent for this kind of use being considered "transformative" and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it's understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it "theft" is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn't make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
You're viewing a single thread.
I rather think the point is being missed here. Copyright is already causing huge issues, such as the troubles faced by the internet archive, and the fact academics get nothing from their work.
Surely the argument here is that copyright law needs to change, as it acts as a barrier to education and human expression. Not, however, just for AI, but as a whole.
Copyright law needs to move with the times, as all laws do.
Intellectual property laws need to be completely abolished and remade from the ground up. They do nothing but harm society as it stands. That said, i don't think ai bros care. They just want to have their product also partake in destroying humanity at every possible level for profit they couldn't even spend if they tried.
Copyright is a lesser evil compared to taking human labor and creativity for free to sell a product.
Come visit academia some time... Copyright laws ensure we do all the work and get nothing in return;)
Not just that, but to sell a product that by its very nature threatens the livelihoods of the same people whose labor and creativity is being used without permission.
I fully agree with this, but my main concern right now is that with the current system how it is we're going to get something that's even worse. Imagine the devastation that would be caused about time they rework the existing copyright law and they decide that fair use is no longer needed, which is a very possible outcome if the current branches were to decide on it
Oh I definitely believe they won't make a wise decision - these past few years have been devastating when it comes to decisions.