zlacker

>>rand0m+(OP)
> Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test:

> 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

> 2) The nature of the copyrighted work

> 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

> 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

[emphasis from TFA]

HN always talks about derivative work and transformativeness, but never about these. The fourth one especially seems clear in its implications for models.

Regardless, it makes it seem much less clear cut than people here often say.

>>6gvONx+qs
Microsoft is gambling on the hope that model training will be ruled fair use. This makes it seem that outcome is unlikely.

>>flango+at
Do you think a human learning something from reading is fair use? Or are we all copyright violators because reading that article altered our connectomes, and we may recall parts of it later?

>>brooks+wu
The point being raised is quite specific. Not sure if you’re willingly ignoring it or what?

The answer is no, because you reading the article didn’t dramatically degrade its market value.

An AI ingesting all content on the internet and then being ultra-effective at frontrunning that content for a large number of future readers does degrade its market value (and subsumes it into the model’s value).

>>ethanb+rv
I disagree. People learning how to draw does degrade the future value of copyrighted work. Imagine the future where nobody was allowed to learn to draw, existing copyright value would skyrocket!

>>ivalm+0w
Arguments like this are great for getting your side to go "rah rah got 'em" and really, really bad for convincing anyone else.

Legal judgments generally focus on actual impacts rather than quirks that might exist in hypothetical universes.

>>llamai+XA
While that may be what your parent intended I'm not entirely sure and there does exist the philosophical level discussion here. Or market economics level I guess.

If your pool of people that can learn about topic X is restricted the outputs or their labor are more expensive. Now lift a continent of billions of people out of poverty, get them access to schooling, safety etc and see the market forces do the rest.

Now equate ChatGPT et al with said billion people. Just that it runs on electricity. If quality is good enough of course. Which is hard to decide right now because of hype.

>>tharku+sE
Your sentiment is exactly what I intended, albeit I was terse and a little facetious. ChatGPT is like introducing a bunch of new skilled labor, it’s just for the first time this skilled labor isn’t human. The fact that this skilled labor learned from copyrighted material is like saying human labor learned from copyrighted material.