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 don't think LLMs should be taken down, it would be impossible for that to happen. I do, however think it should be forced into open source.
Yes. I'd also add that current copyright laws are archaic and counterproductive when combined with modern technology.
Creators need protection, but only for 15 years. Not death + 70 years.
This is the only way. These companies are essentially asking for a free license for themselves while everyone else must pay.
"Copyright for thee but not for me."
Will your warez be legal after you wrap them in an AI model, or only if you are a big, greedy, invasive, tech company?
Wow, thanks, I have not seen this comment, yet I hinted about this in some of my other replies that I've done before.
Yes, I think ML is fair use, but there it would also be fair to force something into the public domain/open source if, in order to be accrued, it has to make use of fair use at unseen amounts of scale.
This would be a difficult to make law, though. Current ML is very inefficient in the amount of data it requires, but it could (and should) be made better.