Comment by close04

Comment by close04 6 months ago

> A human with a great memory

This kind of argument keeps popping up usually to justify why training LLMs on protected material is fair, and why their output is fair. It's always used in a super selective way, never accounting for confounding factors, just because superficially it sort of supports that idea.

Exceptional humans are exceptional, rare. When they learn, or create something new based on prior knowledge, or just reproduce the original they do it with human limitations and timescales. Laws account for these limitations but still draw lines for when some of this behavior is not permitted.

The law didn't account for a computer "software" that can ingest the entirety of human creation that no human could ever do, then reproduce the original or create an endless number of variations in a blink of an eye.

ab5tract 6 months ago

That’s why the “transformative” argument falls so flat to me. It’s about transformation in the mind and hands of a human.

Traditionally tools that reduce the friction of creating those transformations make a work less “transformed” in the eyes of the law, not more so. In this case the transformation requires zero mental or physical effort.

Reply View 0 replies

staticman2 6 months ago

Nobody in real life thinks humans and machines are the same thing and actually believes they should have the same legal status. The A.I. enthusiast would not support the legality of shooting them when no longer useful the way a company would shred an old hard drive.

This supposed failure to see the difference between the human mind and a machine whenever someone brings up copyright is peformative and disingenuous.

Reply View 2 replies

close04 6 months ago

> Nobody in real life thinks humans and machines are the same thing
Maybe you've been following a different conversation, or jumping to conclusions is just more convenient. This isn't about "legal status of AI" but about laws written having in mind only the capabilities of humans, at a time when systems as powerful as today's were unthinkable. Obviously the same laws have to set different limits for humans and machines.
There's no law limiting a human's top (running) speed but you have speed limits for cars. Maybe you're legally allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon but not an automatic one. This is the ELI5 for why when legislating, capabilities make all the difference. Obviously a rifle should not have the same legal status or be the same thing as a human, just in case my point is still lost on you.
Literally every single discussion on this LLM training/output topic, this one included, eventually has a number of people basing their argument on "but humans are allowed to do it", completely ignoring that humans can only do it in a much, much more limited way.
> is peformative and disingenuous
That's an extremely uncharitable and aggressive take, especially after not bothering to understand at all what I said.

Reply View | 1 reply
- staticman2 6 months ago
  
  >That's an extremely uncharitable and aggressive take, especially after not bothering to understand at all what I said.
  To be clear, my intent wasn't to say you were the one being performative and disingenuous. I was referring to the sort of person you were debating against, the one who thinks every legal issue involving A.I. can be settled by typing "humans are allowed to do it."
  Since I replied to you, I can see how what I wrote was confusing. My apologies.
  The parent you replied to claimed LLMs are using "mechanism similar enough to what humans do and what humans do is fine."
  Parent probably doesn't want his or her brain shredded like an old hard drive despite claiming similar mechanisms whenever it is convinient.
  I'm arguing nobody actually believes there are "similar mechanisms" between machines and humans in their revealed preferences in day to day life.
  >There's no law limiting a human's top (running) speed but you have speed limits for cars. Maybe you're legally allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon but not an automatic one.
  I don't believe this analogy works. If we're talking about transmitting the text of Harry Potter, I believe it would already be illegal for a single human to type it on demand as a service.
  If we are talking about remembering the text of Harry Potter but not reciting it on demand, that's not illegal for a human because copyright doesn't govern human memories.
  I don't see what copyright law you think needs updating.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies