Our current best technology, LLMs, are good enough for translating an email or meeting transcript and getting the general message across. Anything more creative, technical, or nuanced, and they fall apart.
Meaning for anything of value like books, plays, movies, poetry, humans will necessarily be part of the process: coaxing, prompting, correcting...
If we consider the machine a tool, it's easy, the work would fall under copyright.
If we consider the machine the creator, then things get tricky. Are only the parts reworked/corrected under copyright? Do we consider under copyright only if a certain portion of the work was machine generated? Is the prompt under copyright, but not its output?
Without even getting into the issue of training data under copyright...
There is some movement regarding copyright of AI art, legislation being drawn up and debated in some countries. It's likely translations would be impacted by those decisions.
Copyright is a very messy and divisive topic. How exactly can an artist claim ownership of a thought or an image? It is often difficult to ascertain whether a piece of art infringes on the copyright of another. There are grey areas like "fair use", which complicate this further. In many cases copyright is also abused by holders to censor art that they don't like for a myriad of unrelated reasons. And there's the argument that copyright stunts innovation. There are entire art movements and music genres that wouldn't exist if copyright was strictly enforced on art.
> Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output.
Art created by humans is not entirely original. Artists are inspired by each other, they follow trends and movements, and often tiptoe the line between copyright infringement and inspiration. Groundbreaking artists are rare, and if we consider that machines can create a practically infinite number of permutations based on their source data, it's not unthinkable that they could also create art that humans consider unique and novel, if nothing else because we're not able to trace the output to all of its source inputs. Then again, those human groundbreaking artists are also inspired by others in ways we often can't perceive. Art is never created in a vacuum. "Good artists copy; great artists steal", etc.
So I guess my point is: it doesn't make sense to apply copyright to art, but there's nothing stopping us from doing the same for machine-generated art, if we wanted to make our laws even more insane. And machine-generated art can also set trends and shape the space they're generated in.
The thing is that technology advances far more rapidly than laws do. AI is raising many questions that we'll have to answer eventually, but it will take a long time to get there. And on that path it's worth rethinking traditional laws like copyright, and considering whether we can implement a new framework that's fair towards creators without the drawbacks of the current system.
Ambiguities are not a good argument against laws that still have positive outcomes.
There are very few laws that are not giant ambiguities. Where is the line between murder, self-defense and accident? There are no lines in reality.
(A law about spectrum use, or registered real estate borders, etc. can be clear. But a large amount of law isn’t.)
Something must change regarding copyright and AI model training.
But it doesn’t have to be the law, it could be technological. Perhaps some of both, but I wouldn’t rule out a technical way to avoid the implicit or explicit incorporation of copyrighted material into models yet.
> There are very few laws that are not giant ambiguities. Where is the line between murder, self-defense and accident? There are no lines in reality.
These things are very well and precisely defined in just about every jurisdiction. The "ambiguities" arise from ascertaining facts of the matter, and whatever some facts fits within a specific set of set rules.
> Something must change regarding copyright and AI model training.
Yes, but this problem is not specific to AI, it is the question of what constitutes a derivative, and that is a rather subjective matter in the light of the good ol' axiom of "nothing is new under the sun".
> These things are very well and precisely defined in just about every jurisdiction.
Yes, we have lots of wording attempting to be precise. And legal uses of terms are certainly more precise by definition and precedent than normal language.
But ambiguities about facts are only half of it. Even when all the facts appear to be clear, human juries have to use their subjective human judgement to pair up what the law says, which may be clear in theory, but is often subjective at the borders, vs. the facts. And reasonable people often differ on how they match the two up in many borderline cases.
We resolve both types of ambiguities case-by-case by having a jury decide, which is not going to be consistent from jury to jury but it is the best system we have. Attorneys vetting prospective jurors are very much aware that the law comes down to humans interpreting human language and concepts, none of which are truly precise, unless we are talking about objective measures (like frequency band use).
---
> it is the question of what constitutes a derivative
Yes, the legal side can adapt.
And the technical side can adapt too.
The problem isn't that material was trained on, but that the resulting model facilitates reproducing individual works (or close variations), and repurposing individual's unique styles.
I.e. they violate fair use by using what they learn in a way that devalues other's creative efforts. Being exposed to copyrighted works available to the public is not the violation. (Even though it is the way training currently happens that produces models that violate fair use.)
We need models that one way or another, stay within fair use once trained. Either by not training on copyrighted material, or by training on copyrighted material in a way that doesn't create models that facilitate specific reproduction and repurposing of creative works and styles.
This has already been solved for simple data problems, where memorization of particular samples can be precluded by adding noise to a dataset. Important generalities are learned, but specific samples don't leave their mark.
Obviously something more sophisticated would need to be done to preclude memorization of rich creative works and styles, but a lot of people are motivated to solve this problem.
It seems like your concerns is about how easy it is going to be to create derivative and similar work, rather than a genuine concerns for copyright. Do I understand correctly?
No, I am just narrowing down the problem definition to the actual damage.
Which is a very fair use and copyright respecting approach.
Taking/obtaining value from works is ok, up until the point where damage to the value of original works happen. And that is not ok. Because copyright protects that value to incentivize the creation and sharing of works.
The problem is that models are shipping that inherently make it easy to reproduce copyrighted works, and apply specific styles lifted from single author's copyrighted bodies of work.
I am very strongly against this.
Note that prohibiting copying of a recognizable specific single author's style is even more strict than fair use limits on humans. Stricter makes sense to me, because unlike humans, models are mass producers.
So I am extremely respectful of protecting copyright value.
But it is not the same thing as not training on something. It is worth exploring training algorithms that can learn useful generalities about bodies of work, without retaining biases toward the specifics of any one work, or any single authored style. That would be in the spirit of fair use. You can learn from any art, if it's publicly displayed, or you have paid for a copy, but you can't create mass copiers of it.
Maybe that is impossible, but I doubt it. There are many ways to train that steer important properties of the resulting models.
Models that make it trivial to create new art deco works, consistent with the total body of art deco works, ok. Models that make it trivial to recreate Erte works, or with an accurately Erte style specifically. Not ok.
> The problem is that models are shipping that inherently make it easy to reproduce copyrighted works, and apply specific styles lifted from single author's copyrighted bodies of work.
> I am very strongly against this.
> Note that prohibiting copying of a recognizable specific single author's style is even more strict than fair use limits on humans. Stricter makes sense to me, because unlike humans, models are mass producers.
This sounds like gate-keeping rather than genuine copyright concerns.
> Models that make it trivial to create new art deco works, consistent with the total body of art deco works, ok. Models that make it trivial to recreate Erte works, or with an accurately Erte style specifically. Not ok.
Yeah, again, sounds like gate-keeping more than an economic and incentives argument which are, in my opinion, the only legitimate concerns underpinning copyright's moral ground.
Every step of progress has made doing things easier and easier to the point that now arguing with some strange across the world seems trivial, almost natural. Surely there are some arguments to curtail this dangerous machinery that undermines the control of information flow and corrupts the minds of the naive! we must shut it down!
Jokes aside, "making things easier/trivial" is the name of the game of progress. You can't stop progress. Everything will be easier and easier as the time goes on.
The catch here is that a human can use single sample as input, but AI needs a torrent of training data. Also when AI generates permutations of samples, does their statistic match training data?
No human could use a single sample if it was literally the first piece of art they had ever seen.
Humans have that torrent of training data baked in from years of lived experience. That’s why people who go to art school or otherwise study art are generally (not always of course) better artists.
A skilled artist can imitate a single art style or draw a specific object from a single reference. But becoming a skilled artist takes years of training. As a society we like to pretend some humans are randomly gifted with the ability to draw, but in reality it's 5% talent and 95% spending countless hours practising the craft. And if you count the years worth of visual data the average human has experienced by the time they can recreate a van Gogh then humans take magnitudes more training data than state of the art ML models
That makes no sense, neither legally nor philosophically.
> Language developed independently of translators.
And it also developed independently of writers and poets.
> Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output.
Not writers and poets, apparently. And so maybe not even artists, who typically mostly painted book references. Color perception and symbolism developed independently of professional artists, too. Moreover, all of the things you mention predate copyright.
> The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.
But that will never happen; it's near-impossible to stop humans from generating novel arts. They just do it as a matter of course - and the more accessible the tools are, the more people participate.
Yes, memes are a form of art, too.
What's a real threat is lack of shared consumption of art. This has been happening for the past couple decades now, first with books, then with visual arts. AI will make this problem worse by both further increasing volume of "novel arts" and by enabling personalization. The real value we're using is the role of art as social objects - the ability to relate to each other by means of experiencing the same works of art, and thus being able to discuss and reference it. If no two people ever experienced the same works of art, there's not much about art they can talk about; if there's no shared set of art seen by most people in a society, there's a social baseline lost. That problem does worry me.
If you think memes are art too and we lack shared consumption of art due to personalization, you clearly don't have kids into YouTube or Minecraft or Frozen, or ...
I don't get what you are trying to say here? Yes, memes are arts however foreign it might be to older folks. To your second point, you know about Frozen because everyone else also watches that. We are about to lose that if there are 1 million variations of "Frozen"-esque movie that people can watch.
I don't think have an AI partner that is trained from zero from childhood to adulthood with goals such as "make me laugh" is too far fetched. The problem is you will never be able to connect with this child because the AI is feeding it insanely obscure, highly specific videos that matches the neurons of the kid perfectly.
I actually have kids, two of them in kindergarten. I can already see this problem affecting them, because beyond Frozen and Paw Patrol and a couple others, everyone also has their own favorite series on YouTube that few other kids heard of, and I can see kids trying and failing to bond over those.
I never thought I'd be thankful for global, toy-pushing franchises, but they at least serve as a social object for kids, when the current glut of kids videos on YouTube doesn't.
I don't think the Berne Convention on Copyright was meant as a complete list of things where humans have valuable input. Translators do shape the space in which they generate output. Their space isn't any single language bit rather the connecting space between languages.
Most translation work is simple just as the day-to-day of many creative professions is rather uncreative. But translating a book, comic or movie requires creative decisions on how to best convey the original meaning in the idioms and cultural context of a different language. The difference between a good and a bag translation can be stark
You are wrong. Translations have copyright. That is why a new translation of for example an ancient book has copyright and you are now allowed to reproduce it without permission.
Makes me wonder if the generous copyright protections afforded to artists had not become so abhorrent (thanks, Disney) then this kind of thing might not have happened.
Stagnate just like hand thatched rooves? Or like weavers, ever since Jaquard?
I don't see too many people defending artists also calling for people to start buying handmade clothing and fabrics again.
That said and because people on here are feisty, I have many artist friends and I deeply appreciate their work at the same time as appreciating how cool diffusion models are.
The difference being of course that we live in a modern society and we should be able to find a solution that works for all.
That said, humans can't even get in something basic like UBI for people and humans consistently vote against each other in favour of discriminating on skin colour, sex, sexuality, culture. Meanwhile the billionaires that are soon to become trillionaires are actively defended by many members of our species, sometimes even by the poor. The industrial age broke our evolved monkey brains.
The output of her translations had no copyright. Language developed independently of translators.
The output of artists has copyright. Artists shape the space in which they’re generating output.
The fear now is that if we no longer have a market where people generate novel arts, that space will stagnate.