You got four replies all about just the DVD part, but I want to ask is how you would word things to apply to AI specifically? LLM models? Idk what language would be in legaleese for this and exclusive enpugh to apply.
The traditional method would be to define the scope and intent of the law, and then defer the specifics of enforcement to an executive agency for nuanced application. That way the law conveys “no usage of information passed to a machine learning model for the purposes of generative content production, nor the output of any such system, should be considered fair use under copyright law unless the usage is non commercial and qualifies as fair use for academic or research purposes”. Then someone like the FCC would determine what qualifies as a machine learning model, and can flex to account for changes in technology.
You basically just say what you mean very specifically. I don’t think it’s a problem for Google to download webpages and track how they connect and their words, because that’s how search engines work. So I’m okay with that. I’m okay with individuals downloading chunks of the public web to do normal things. I’m okay with people needing huge swaths of the text for research, as well as the images, even for specific research into generative AI of the type we’re talking about. No one is being harmed by someone at MIT incidentally creating farside comics.
Harm or no harm, the disagreeable part to me is the commercial use of the model trained on inputs from people who didn’t want you to do that, sometimes without even having the most superficial justification to have the content in the first place.
You got four replies all about just the DVD part, but I want to ask is how you would word things to apply to AI specifically? LLM models? Idk what language would be in legaleese for this and exclusive enpugh to apply.
The traditional method would be to define the scope and intent of the law, and then defer the specifics of enforcement to an executive agency for nuanced application. That way the law conveys “no usage of information passed to a machine learning model for the purposes of generative content production, nor the output of any such system, should be considered fair use under copyright law unless the usage is non commercial and qualifies as fair use for academic or research purposes”. Then someone like the FCC would determine what qualifies as a machine learning model, and can flex to account for changes in technology.
You basically just say what you mean very specifically. I don’t think it’s a problem for Google to download webpages and track how they connect and their words, because that’s how search engines work. So I’m okay with that. I’m okay with individuals downloading chunks of the public web to do normal things. I’m okay with people needing huge swaths of the text for research, as well as the images, even for specific research into generative AI of the type we’re talking about. No one is being harmed by someone at MIT incidentally creating farside comics.
Harm or no harm, the disagreeable part to me is the commercial use of the model trained on inputs from people who didn’t want you to do that, sometimes without even having the most superficial justification to have the content in the first place.
Thank you for the clarification. The topic is growing ever more nebulous.