Technology

37747 readers

149 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

379

Google says AI systems should be able to mine publishers’ work unless companies opt out, turning copyright law on its head (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/technology@beehaw.org

177 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AIs are deliberately designed to not copy-and-paste.

AI is a marketing term, not a technical one. You can call anything "AI", but it's usually predictive models that get called that.

AIs are deliberately designed to not copy-and-paste. What would be the point of one that did? Nobody wants that.

For example if the powers that be decided to say licenses don't apply once you feed material through an "AI", and failed to define AI, you could say you wrote this awesome OS using an AI that you trained exclusively using Microsoft proprietary code. Their licenses and copyright and stuff doesn't apply to AI training data so you could sell that new code your AI just created.

It doesn't even have to be 100% identical to Windows source code. What if it's just 80%? 50%? 20%? 5%? Where is the bar where the author can claim "that's my code!"?

Just to compare, the guys who set out to reimplement Win32 APIs for use in Linux (the thing that made it into MacOS as well now) deliberately would not accept help from anyone who ever saw any Microsoft source code for fear of being sued. The bar was that high when it was a small FOSS organization doing it. It was 0%, proven beyond a doubt.

Now that Microsoft is the author, it's not a problem when Github Copilot spits out GPL code word for word, ironically together with its license.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

AI is a marketing term, not a technical one.

The reverse, actually. Artificial intelligence is a field of research that includes things like machine learning, as well as lots of even more mundane applications. It's pop culture that has hijacked it to mean "a thing exactly as capable as a human brain, but in computer form."

For example if the powers that be decided to say licenses don’t apply once you feed material through an “AI”, and failed to define AI, you could say you wrote this awesome OS using an AI that you trained exclusively using Microsoft proprietary code.

Once again, it doesn't matter what you "feed code through." Copyright applies to the tangible result. If the output from the AI matches closely to something that's already copyrighted then that copyright applies to it. If it doesn't match closely then that copyright doesn't apply to it. The actual process by which the code was produced doesn't matter one whit. If I took a Harry Potter book, put its pages through a shredder, randomly glued the particles of paper back together and it just so happened to closely replicate Lord of the Rings then the Tolkien estate has a case against me but the Rowling estate does not.