ClarkesworldI'm tired of waiting for industry organizations to respond to AI issues. Working draft of my own is here: http://neil-clarke.com/ai-statement/
Greg Leunig@clarkesworld Of all the disasters we have experienced and will experience because our government is run by a bunch of geriatric white people... #AI is absolutely going to be the worst in our lifetimes.
Bernie Luckily Does It@booksthatgoboom @clarkesworld Worse than global warming?
Allie Potts@clarkesworld I would absolutely sign this
henry@clarkesworld In some jurisdictions, #Copyright includes #MoralRights. Might the incorporation of a work in a data set for an LLM already constitute a violation? If your work has been used to train an LLM, regardless of consent, are you not entitled to fractional royalties? #IntellectualProperty
Baltasar Cevc@henry @clarkesworld at least here in #Germany #authorsrights (that's what we would talk about for the moral rights) are less about royalties than about deciding what can happen with your creation. That is, up to you to decide whether you want something go public or not, etc. You have less control once it's public, though. We have many borderline cases, much to find out, parts probably not ok. Don't forget that all IP rights only protect against certain actions (e.g. copying, distributing, ...)
PJ "Vote Green" CoffeyI guess scraping it off the internet and using it in an AI confabulation mill is going to be legal because it hasn't been made illegal.
@Homebrewandhacking @henry @clarkesworld Well, #scraping may or may not be legal. It is not so clear. And it may depend on the jurisdiction. For example, we do not have the #fairuse doctrine here in #Europe, so we need to rely on per case exceptions to #copyrights
@baltasar @clarkesworld #BerneConvention #Art6bis etc. Musicians sometimes ask politicians not to play their songs at political rallies. Perhaps this has even been enforced by courts. Might you analogously argue that the incorporation of your work into an LLM dataset violates your honor?
@henry @clarkesworld you may argue quite a lot, and it is up to the competent courts to decide (they will apply the national implementations, not the convention directly).
But to give you a more concrete answer, I doubt that that in itself would help you: in the cases you've cited there is a public performance, connected to political views. The training is a very silent act.
We'll have to wait for cases. One of the better overviews of what's going on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ax8twEwgw&t=390s
AI/ML Media Advocacy Summit Keynote: Steven Zapata
Jeff MoeThis is really good. Not sure about this though:
"We believe that copyright holders should be able to request the removal of their works from databases that have been created from digital or analog sources without their consent."
The law is the other way. They need permission before copying. The burden shouldn't be on the authors. If authors' data is in an AI database without permission, it violates copyright law, so authors can sue to collect, and criminal penalties apply.
@clarkesworld Have you considered how you would be able to fit your copyright-related demands into the US Constitutional framework that copyright only exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts? It doesn't seem useful to push for a bill that would just get struck down by the courts.
@BernieDoesIt Copyright office has already stated that the work has to be of human origin and not presently eligible for copyright. We are saying that it shouldn't be extended to cover a case that is already disallowed.
@pineywoozle ‘s #3WordNote@clarkesworld I loved your statement. Also this part “LLMs can not copyright generated materials nor can publishers of LLM generated materials” cracked me up because you know damn well they want to copywrite stuff they based on stolen words and creativity.
Benjamin Hollon 🇺🇸🇲🇾🇮🇳🇦🇫With you on every point. Thank you for this!
Karen StrickholmI'm no technology/AI expert, but I don't think I saw a requirement to disclose source material. Say I purchase an AI-generated product. Would it be of value to require disclosure of all source material? Unless creator of source material opts out.
AI is a massive intellectual property endeavor. I would think some intellectual property attorneys should have input.
More 1/2
Also accountants, from a top shelf firm. Say there are royalties to be paid for material used to create the AI projects. Well that means it needs to be auditable. What other financial considerations need to be included?
Also what about when disputes arise? Where does the content prrovider go to file a complaint? Is there an existing federal agrncy for this, or does one need to be created?
2/whoops! More ...
I recognize this is a statement of principles, but I do feel that the input from these other disciplines will be invaluable at the front end. Ciao for now!
3/3 \end
militant_dilettante@clarkesworld Great statement. We need more attention paid to real damages caused by "generative systems" and less - to an unending flow of doomhype about future AI overlordship.
The legal space of USA laws is disproportionately (or maybe proportionally) important for deciding the outcomes of new technologies' applications in our lives.
The legal space of USA laws is disproportionately (or maybe proportionally) important for deciding the outcomes of new technologies' applications in our lives.
Jon Sparks@clarkesworld Sign me up!
Jesse@clarkesworld @bhalpin “We believe that governments should be seeking advice on this legislation from a considerably wider range of people than just those who profit from this technology.” Oh my god yes. This part. Put it in flashing neon signs, and install them across the street from every congressperson’s bedroom. (And journalists too)
Crystal Huff (they/them)@misc @clarkesworld @bhalpin it turns out, I have a friend who's a lawyer working on copyright stuff, and he's got some irons in the fire on AI stuff! I asked him to send me some pointers to what's already public when he gets a chance. 😊