zlacker

Same issue with Stable Diffusion/NovelAI and certain people's artwork (eg Greg Rutkowski) being obviously used as part of the training set. More noticeable in Copilot since the output needs to be a lot more precise.

Lawmakers need to jump on this stuff ASAP. Some say that it's no different from a person looking at existing code or art and recreating it from memory or using it as inspiration. But the law changes when technology gets involved already, anyway. There's no law against you and I having a conversation, but I may not be able to record it depending on the jurisdiction. Similarly, there's no law against you looking at artwork that I post online, but it's not out of question that a law could exist preventing you from using it as part of an ML training dataset.

>>mjr00+(OP)
> Some say that it's no different from a person looking at existing code or art and recreating it from memory or using it as inspiration.

Hah, no, the model encodes the code that it was trained on. This is not "recreating from memory", this is "making a copy of the code in a different format." (Modulo some variable renaming, which it's probably programmed to do to in order to obscure the source of the code.)

>>mjr00+(OP)
Not really, unless you can produce a verbatim copy of existing artwork out of stability's stable diffusion.

>>mjr00+(OP)
Now here's a question:

Suppose we trained the open AI model on the entire corpus of pop hits from about 1960 onwards.

What are the chances it would get sued for copyright infringement.

If the derivative nature is clear in the same model being trained on popular song, then it should be the same for code (or visual art, or a number of other domains).

Not arguing for current copyright law, just pointing out the inconsistencies.

For that matter, what would happen if you asked Copilot for a set of Java headers. Asking for a friend!

>>SrslyJ+Wd
If I hear a song on the radio and then sing it, I still won't own the copyright.

>>steve_+rR
This isn't the situation Copilot is in.

A more analogous situation would be if the AI model occasionally returned the entirety of "Baby One More Time" by Britney Spears. Yes, I think you'd be sued if you passed off Baby One More Time as an original work just because you got it from an open AI tool.

>>averev+6P
"I cannot produce proof but I dislike the argument, so I must downvote" - the HN community being the rational actor that it always is

>>averev+af2
> Lawmakers need to jump on this stuff ASAP

Maybe not as soon as possible, probably a lot of other problems that need immediate attention.

But some attention maybe? Nobody likes it if someone does a repost of a post, but some reposting could be seen as going "viral" so as a creator you're cool with it. If someone else does the whole going "viral" with your work, maybe it's less cool.

In spirit of the thread, if co-pilot generates some code to create a stable diffusion prompt explicitly for "Greg Rutkowski" art and it writes code your friend wrote for a small gig, well can you re-use his code for your own gig?

Can "Greg" even claim it was his art in your opininion, even though it's probably not a verbatim copy

>>mjr00+(OP)
Yes, lawmakers should come ASAP and make everybody pay rents that will ultimately not even be pocketed by the median creator/developer. What a fantastic vision! What a feast for the capitalist beast …