> We should in my view not take from artists without their consent
I think "take" is the wrong word here, nobody is republishing the copyrighted works, instead the model gets a gradient update. The update is shaped exactly like the model itself, and it gets stacked up with other updates from other examples. It doesn't look like the original work at all, the original work was a picture or book, the gradients look like a set of floating point tensors. AI models decompose inputs into basic concepts, they don't copy like bittorrent.
Why should an AI not be allowed to form a full world model that includes all published works? It's not like the authors can use copyright to stop anyone from seeing their works, they never had a right to stop others from seeing.
I am more arguing that if it’s considered taking, we should follow the path I recommend.
Whether or not it is taking is more nuanced, but I will say I’m not sympathetic to the idea that it’s broadly similar to a human looking at the work. It’s just very, very different. You can’t spin up a copy of a human on a cloud server and make them work 24/7.
I would expect that as laypeople we aren’t equipped to reason about this effectively. I suspect that decades or more of case law would be relevant to how this would be viewed, and I’m personally not equipped to argue it.
What I do know is that artists don’t feel good about it. They feel like they’re being taken from. And I’m not inclined to quickly dismiss their concerns. I think this needs careful, deliberate consideration. And if a system could be built that is consent based, I’d feel much better about it. A human child could be raised and mature without ever being exposed to copyrighted material beyond a handful of books (harder in the modern world but common 200 years ago). Maybe we just need to build better models. It certainly seems possible.
I think "take" is the wrong word here, nobody is republishing the copyrighted works, instead the model gets a gradient update. The update is shaped exactly like the model itself, and it gets stacked up with other updates from other examples. It doesn't look like the original work at all, the original work was a picture or book, the gradients look like a set of floating point tensors. AI models decompose inputs into basic concepts, they don't copy like bittorrent.
Why should an AI not be allowed to form a full world model that includes all published works? It's not like the authors can use copyright to stop anyone from seeing their works, they never had a right to stop others from seeing.