the authors said the takedown reflects Nvidia's having "admitted" it trained NeMo on the dataset
Oooh so they're fucked.
THOUGH... let's say I bought a book, why am I not allowed to learn from that book, and write in a similar style to that book. I am? Well why can't I train an AI to use that book and have it write in a similar style? I'm not sold on "I must give you permission to use my book to train an AI." Maybe if I agreed to those terms BEFORE buying the book, but it seems odd that someone can bar me from doing that AFTER buying the book. And just because "we never thought about that" isn't really a good excuse to change the rights for someone who bought the book.
Though if anything this basically proves the old adage. "Don't tell anyone what's in your AI's training data"
Because if a human does it, it's a huge, labour-intensive task, and that difficulty serves as a very effective filter to stop the world being flooded by copied crap derived from the hard work of a person.
If we let AIs do it, we'd be able to churn out so much of it. Just a never ending torrent of machine-generated copycat garbage, constantly being spewed out, flooding the market, stamping out the actual people that wrote the content in the first place.
Funny enough, the printing press also led to changes for a similar reason - there was very little protection in place for writers before the printing press, because copying their work was such a painstaking task that few people bothered and it wasn't much of an issue. Once there was the technology to quickly and trivially rip off their work and print it mass-scale, IP protections were granted to authors.
While I agree that AI generated content is annoying and of poor quality, those are hardly reasons to disallow the creation of AI generated content. If we want to expand IP protections to protect against AI plagerism, we need to draw a better line than just calling it garbage.
I never said AI content should be banned.
That was the entire context of your response. Did you read the comment you were replying to?
Can I ask you a question? Are you stupid? Because you look stupid. I never said AI should be banned. You made that up.
You really came back a day later and left a second angsty reply because I didn't reply to your first one? lmao
You didn't reply to the first one because you had no answer. You're still avoiding it. Sad.
No it wasn't. You should reread my comment.
Read. Then come back to me.
That's all wrong. It's propaganda.
The rulers of old were brutal, theocratic tyrants. Forget all that Disney shit. Think witch burnings. Think medieval torture. Of course, they sought to control the printing press. They cracked down on blasphemy and regime criticism. Maybe they only allowed trusted individuals to operate presses. That also funneled money to cronies. Or maybe they even forbade the printing of anything that had not been approved.
Freedom of the press originally means that this is not done anymore.
The first copyright was created over a quarter millennium after the printing press came into use in Europe. It lasted 14 years.
Here's a question: If we were to ban free, open source software, would that protect programmers? Of course not. They have the choice to make their products a gift or not. In the same sense, copyright does not protect authors. Without copyright, there would be only the public domain. People would have a choice to make a gift to the public or not to publish.
Copyright does not protect authors. It was supposed to give the public a tool to support authors. The US Constitution gives that as the only acceptable purpose of copyrights and patents. Unfortunately, current copyright derives from a different source. It was created by the tyrannical empires of Europe in the 19th century. Americans like to blame Disney, but all they did was lobby for the US to adopt it.
Once there was the technology to quickly and trivially rip off their work and print it mass-scale, IP protections were granted to authors.
the statute of ann had nothing to do with protecting authors. it was about which london printers were allowed to print shakespeare's work long after he was dead.
Humans are not generally allowed to do what AI is doing! You talk about copying someone else's "style" because you know that "style" is not protected by copyright, but that is a false equivalence. An AI is not copying "style", but rather every discernible pattern of its input. It is just as likely to copy Walt Disney's drawing style as it is to copy the design of Mickey Mouse. We've seen countless examples of AI's copying characters, verbatim passages of texts and snippets of code. Imagine if a person copied Mickey Mouse's character design and they got sued for copyright infringement. Then they go to court and their defense was that they downloaded copies of the original works without permission and studied them for the sole purpose of imitating them. They would be admitting that every perceived similarity is intentional. Do you think they would not be found guilty of copyright infringement? And AI is this example taken to the extreme. It's not just creating something similar, it is by design trying to maximize the similarity of its output to its training data. It is being the least creative that is mathematically possible. The AI's only trick is that it threw so many stuff into its mixer of training data that you can't generally trace the output to a specific input. But the math is clear. And while its obvious that no sane person will use a copy of Mickey Mouse just because an AI produced it, the same cannot be said for characters of lesser known works, passages from obscure books, and code snippets from small free software projects.
In addition to the above, we allow humans to engage in potentially harmful behavior for various reasons that do not apply to AIs.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to our justice systems. The same does not apply to inanimate objects. Eg a firearm is restricted because of the danger it poses even if it has not been used to shoot someone. A person is only liable for the damage they have caused, never their potential to cause it.
We care about peoples' well-being. We would not ban people from enjoying art just because they might copy it because that would be sacrificing too much. However, no harm is done to an AI when it is prevented from being trained, because an AI is not a person with feelings.
Human behavior is complex and hard to control. A person might unintentionally copy protected elements of works when being influenced by them, but that's hard to tell in most cases. An AI has the sole purpose of copying patterns with no other input.
For all of the above reasons, we choose to err on the side of caution when restricting human behavior, but we have no reason to do the same for AIs, or anything inanimate.
In summary, we do not allow humans to do what AIs are doing now and even if we did, that would not be a good argument against AI regulation.
Mickey Mouse is public domain...
Only the very early version, "Steamboat Willie". And only insofar as it is not a trademark. You can, however, perfectly legally use copyrighted characters. EG The copyrighted Mickey Mouse appears multiple times in South Park. Copyright ideologues always try to make people forget that. They want every human thought and every idea to be owned as "property" and used to extract rent money.
Since some folks in this thread can't be bothered to click on the article, here is the first sentence:
Nvidia, whose chips power artificial intelligence, has been sued by three authors who said it used their copyrighted books without permission to train its NeMo AI platform.
In this case, "it" is Nvidia. They are training their own model, not just selling chips.
"That led to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which effectively granted gun manufacturers and sellers immunity from lawsuits related to harm “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of guns.
Unlike other industries, the gun industry was now largely free to act as it chose."
Creating material that is copyright infridgement is not a desired output, the purpose of guns is to kill (when used). AI manufacturers depend on copyrighted material to "train" the AI, the method of creation makes it more likely to infridge.
Creating material that is copyright infridgement is not a desired output
Agreed.
the purpose of guns is to kill (when used).
Guns is a term with varied definitions of which not all are intended to kill. There are rubber bullets, air soft, small caliber, and even paint ball guns. These MAY be lethal but were made with other goals in mind.
Nvidia on the other hand made GPUs for applications that revolve around video, the G literally stands for graphics. Some people found out that they are also efficient at other tasks so Nvidia made a new line of products for that workload because it was more lucrative. Gamers usually only buy 1 graphics card per machine, a few years ago some would even buy up to 3. In contrast, AI researchers/architects/programmers buy as many as they can afford and constantly buy more. This has made Nvidia change their product stack to cater to the more lucrative customer.
AI manufacturers depend on copyrighted material to "train" the AI
With everything I said, these AI creators CHOOSE what to feed into these new tools. They can choose to input things in the public domain or even paid-licensed-content but instead using copyrighted and pirated content is the norm. That is because this is a new field and we are collectively learning where the boundaries are and what is considered acceptable and legal.
Reddit recently signed a deal to license it's data (user generated content like posts and comments) for use with AI generation. Other companies are using internal data to tailor their AIs to solve field-specific problems. The problem is that AI, just like guns, is a broad term.
the method of creation makes it more likely to infridge.
Nvidia has given us the tools but until we define what is considered acceptable, these kinds of things will be inevitable. I do believe that the authors had their copyrights infringed but they are also going after the wrong people. There have been reports of AI spitting out full books on command, clearly proving that those works were used to train. The authors should be going after the creators of those specific AIs, not Nvidia.
There is a long and bumpy road ahead.
I don't like Nvidia as they're anti-consumer and anti software freedom, my biased here.
In my country guns are not a legal right and I don't think they should be legalised. That said, guns have a purpose: to stop people that can't be reasonably stopped non-violently.
Nvidia is creating AI cards with the expectations people will train it with copyrighted works. Maybe most generated art isn't infringing (or rather, isn't caught being infringing). I'm interested to see how much responsibility they are found to share but I'm confident it won't stop someone doing it.
I'm not aware of people training AI using public domain works and I have further objections to AI's use in that case regarding the impact on artists.
It’s more like charging the iron ore mining companies over gun murders.
NVIDIA doesn’t have any say over how their GPUs are used.
I think it's more like the gun manufacturers themselves sueing the US army
Seems to me like a reasonable criterion would be to determine if the trained model outputs copyright-infringing text in response to non-infringing prompts.
The ability to create a copy of a copyrighted work from ai shouldn't be any more relevant than with a copy machine.
Good
Not in a million chance this goes through. Can you sue Intel/AMD for making processors that could be used to develop malware? No.
You should read the article.
They're not being sued for making hardware that can be used nefariously; they're being sued because the AI model that they themselves run uses data they had no permission to use.
Intel/AMD created a bunch of malware to test their processors that infringed on copyright? I mean. . . yeah if they did then sure.
They did have those people trying lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for any misuse of their firearms, until Congress blocked that in 2005.
Ah, the wonderful “Child Safety Lock Act of 2005” lol. Love politician names for this shit.
Oooh so they're fucked.
THOUGH... let's say I bought a book, why am I not allowed to learn from that book, and write in a similar style to that book. I am? Well why can't I train an AI to use that book and have it write in a similar style? I'm not sold on "I must give you permission to use my book to train an AI." Maybe if I agreed to those terms BEFORE buying the book, but it seems odd that someone can bar me from doing that AFTER buying the book. And just because "we never thought about that" isn't really a good excuse to change the rights for someone who bought the book.
Though if anything this basically proves the old adage. "Don't tell anyone what's in your AI's training data"
Because if a human does it, it's a huge, labour-intensive task, and that difficulty serves as a very effective filter to stop the world being flooded by copied crap derived from the hard work of a person.
If we let AIs do it, we'd be able to churn out so much of it. Just a never ending torrent of machine-generated copycat garbage, constantly being spewed out, flooding the market, stamping out the actual people that wrote the content in the first place.
Funny enough, the printing press also led to changes for a similar reason - there was very little protection in place for writers before the printing press, because copying their work was such a painstaking task that few people bothered and it wasn't much of an issue. Once there was the technology to quickly and trivially rip off their work and print it mass-scale, IP protections were granted to authors.
While I agree that AI generated content is annoying and of poor quality, those are hardly reasons to disallow the creation of AI generated content. If we want to expand IP protections to protect against AI plagerism, we need to draw a better line than just calling it garbage.
I never said AI content should be banned.
That was the entire context of your response. Did you read the comment you were replying to?
Can I ask you a question? Are you stupid? Because you look stupid. I never said AI should be banned. You made that up.
You really came back a day later and left a second angsty reply because I didn't reply to your first one? lmao
You didn't reply to the first one because you had no answer. You're still avoiding it. Sad.
No it wasn't. You should reread my comment.
Read. Then come back to me.
That's all wrong. It's propaganda.
The rulers of old were brutal, theocratic tyrants. Forget all that Disney shit. Think witch burnings. Think medieval torture. Of course, they sought to control the printing press. They cracked down on blasphemy and regime criticism. Maybe they only allowed trusted individuals to operate presses. That also funneled money to cronies. Or maybe they even forbade the printing of anything that had not been approved.
Freedom of the press originally means that this is not done anymore.
The first copyright was created over a quarter millennium after the printing press came into use in Europe. It lasted 14 years.
Here's a question: If we were to ban free, open source software, would that protect programmers? Of course not. They have the choice to make their products a gift or not. In the same sense, copyright does not protect authors. Without copyright, there would be only the public domain. People would have a choice to make a gift to the public or not to publish.
Copyright does not protect authors. It was supposed to give the public a tool to support authors. The US Constitution gives that as the only acceptable purpose of copyrights and patents. Unfortunately, current copyright derives from a different source. It was created by the tyrannical empires of Europe in the 19th century. Americans like to blame Disney, but all they did was lobby for the US to adopt it.
the statute of ann had nothing to do with protecting authors. it was about which london printers were allowed to print shakespeare's work long after he was dead.
Humans are not generally allowed to do what AI is doing! You talk about copying someone else's "style" because you know that "style" is not protected by copyright, but that is a false equivalence. An AI is not copying "style", but rather every discernible pattern of its input. It is just as likely to copy Walt Disney's drawing style as it is to copy the design of Mickey Mouse. We've seen countless examples of AI's copying characters, verbatim passages of texts and snippets of code. Imagine if a person copied Mickey Mouse's character design and they got sued for copyright infringement. Then they go to court and their defense was that they downloaded copies of the original works without permission and studied them for the sole purpose of imitating them. They would be admitting that every perceived similarity is intentional. Do you think they would not be found guilty of copyright infringement? And AI is this example taken to the extreme. It's not just creating something similar, it is by design trying to maximize the similarity of its output to its training data. It is being the least creative that is mathematically possible. The AI's only trick is that it threw so many stuff into its mixer of training data that you can't generally trace the output to a specific input. But the math is clear. And while its obvious that no sane person will use a copy of Mickey Mouse just because an AI produced it, the same cannot be said for characters of lesser known works, passages from obscure books, and code snippets from small free software projects.
In addition to the above, we allow humans to engage in potentially harmful behavior for various reasons that do not apply to AIs.
For all of the above reasons, we choose to err on the side of caution when restricting human behavior, but we have no reason to do the same for AIs, or anything inanimate.
In summary, we do not allow humans to do what AIs are doing now and even if we did, that would not be a good argument against AI regulation.
Mickey Mouse is public domain...
Only the very early version, "Steamboat Willie". And only insofar as it is not a trademark. You can, however, perfectly legally use copyrighted characters. EG The copyrighted Mickey Mouse appears multiple times in South Park. Copyright ideologues always try to make people forget that. They want every human thought and every idea to be owned as "property" and used to extract rent money.
Since some folks in this thread can't be bothered to click on the article, here is the first sentence:
In this case, "it" is Nvidia. They are training their own model, not just selling chips.
I didn't even knew they had a model themselves.
of course they have trained models in house. they had ai write a song during a meme conference last year
they also use ai to train a model for DLSS image upscaling in house.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
they had ai write a song during a meme conference last year
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Guys! He found him!
Several comments making the some gun manufacturer analogy didn’t bother to read 3 sentences from article.
Lemmings showing their Redditage (Reddit heritage)
This feels like suing gun manufacturers over murder. They made the tool but they're not the ones responsible for the crime.
Mexico is suing U.S. gun makers for selling high-powered weapons that fuel drug cartel violence.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/27/gun-lawsuits-manufacturer-sellers-crimes
"That led to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which effectively granted gun manufacturers and sellers immunity from lawsuits related to harm “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of guns.
Unlike other industries, the gun industry was now largely free to act as it chose."
Creating material that is copyright infridgement is not a desired output, the purpose of guns is to kill (when used). AI manufacturers depend on copyrighted material to "train" the AI, the method of creation makes it more likely to infridge.
Agreed.
Guns is a term with varied definitions of which not all are intended to kill. There are rubber bullets, air soft, small caliber, and even paint ball guns. These MAY be lethal but were made with other goals in mind.
Nvidia on the other hand made GPUs for applications that revolve around video, the G literally stands for graphics. Some people found out that they are also efficient at other tasks so Nvidia made a new line of products for that workload because it was more lucrative. Gamers usually only buy 1 graphics card per machine, a few years ago some would even buy up to 3. In contrast, AI researchers/architects/programmers buy as many as they can afford and constantly buy more. This has made Nvidia change their product stack to cater to the more lucrative customer.
With everything I said, these AI creators CHOOSE what to feed into these new tools. They can choose to input things in the public domain or even paid-licensed-content but instead using copyrighted and pirated content is the norm. That is because this is a new field and we are collectively learning where the boundaries are and what is considered acceptable and legal.
Reddit recently signed a deal to license it's data (user generated content like posts and comments) for use with AI generation. Other companies are using internal data to tailor their AIs to solve field-specific problems. The problem is that AI, just like guns, is a broad term.
Nvidia has given us the tools but until we define what is considered acceptable, these kinds of things will be inevitable. I do believe that the authors had their copyrights infringed but they are also going after the wrong people. There have been reports of AI spitting out full books on command, clearly proving that those works were used to train. The authors should be going after the creators of those specific AIs, not Nvidia.
There is a long and bumpy road ahead.
I don't like Nvidia as they're anti-consumer and anti software freedom, my biased here. In my country guns are not a legal right and I don't think they should be legalised. That said, guns have a purpose: to stop people that can't be reasonably stopped non-violently.
Nvidia is creating AI cards with the expectations people will train it with copyrighted works. Maybe most generated art isn't infringing (or rather, isn't caught being infringing). I'm interested to see how much responsibility they are found to share but I'm confident it won't stop someone doing it.
I'm not aware of people training AI using public domain works and I have further objections to AI's use in that case regarding the impact on artists.
It’s more like charging the iron ore mining companies over gun murders.
NVIDIA doesn’t have any say over how their GPUs are used.
I think it's more like the gun manufacturers themselves sueing the US army
Seems to me like a reasonable criterion would be to determine if the trained model outputs copyright-infringing text in response to non-infringing prompts.
The ability to create a copy of a copyrighted work from ai shouldn't be any more relevant than with a copy machine.
Good
Not in a million chance this goes through. Can you sue Intel/AMD for making processors that could be used to develop malware? No.
You should read the article.
They're not being sued for making hardware that can be used nefariously; they're being sued because the AI model that they themselves run uses data they had no permission to use.
Intel/AMD created a bunch of malware to test their processors that infringed on copyright? I mean. . . yeah if they did then sure.
They did have those people trying lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for any misuse of their firearms, until Congress blocked that in 2005.
Ah, the wonderful “Child Safety Lock Act of 2005” lol. Love politician names for this shit.