"AI" and Intellectual Property

If, say, I broadcast a short story on the radio, I have to license the original work. If I print a book, I have to have a license to do so. If I publish a thinly-veiled rewrite of a book without a license, that is copyright infringement. And so on and on. It ought to be copyright infringement to do that with a large language model (LLM) or, for visual art, a stable diffusion model (SDM.)

LLMs and SDMs do not exist, do not operate at all, without a body of work to built the models from. Without that training data those models do not exist at all. Therefore the developer of an LLM, SDM, or any other future generative machine learning technology, ought to be required to license any work used for developing that model.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nuclear Fusion, "AI," and Big Science

Sam Altman, who runs OpenAI, is a major investor in a firm called Helion (unlocked Bloomberg article), which claims it will be producing electricity from nuclear fusion by 2028. This is the second version of this article; physicist Stefan Urbat wrote to inform me that after 60 years there has been progress in dealing with second-order instabilities.
Read more

Why ChatGPT?

Why ChatGPT? Why Stable Diffusion? They are destructive in so many ways, expensive to operate, and are probably ultimately going to fail, polluting the information environment for years. They don’t even make good money. So, why?
Read more

The General Intelligence of Robots

“Artificial intelligence” researchers mean by the phrase “general intelligence” two things. One is simply a machine learning system that can, like humans, use its knowledge for many different tasks. This is not something that has currently been built; language models produce language, stable diffusion models produce images, and neither seem to have any concepts of the underlying realities these words and images reflect. The second is the “general intelligence,” g , derived from intelligence tests, which is believed by some to be a unifying reality behind intelligence test scores. In a paper on GPT-4 from Microsoft a Wall Street Journal Editorial by Linda Gottfredson, Mainstream Science on Intelligence is cited as providing a definition of general intelligence. It’s an appalling piece, repeating debunked claims about racial differences in intelligence and claiming as scientific consensus hypotheses that are at best debatable and at worst outright false.
Read more