Is Copyright Eating AI?

Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by freejazz on Sunday January 22, 2023 @04:10PM (#34482263)

You are just anthropomorphizing the model by calling it teaching and then implicitly equating that it's the same thing happening in the human mind. That's your burden to establish when you say it's the same.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by unusualmonkey on Sunday January 22, 2023 @06:29PM (#34483511)

Actually, isn't the burden of the plaintiffs to prove their copyrights are being violated?

Whether or not it's identical to human brains isn't the matter, they'd need to prove how a small 5GB model trained from a huge dataset infringes their rights specifically.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by freejazz on Monday January 23, 2023 @10:36AM (#34490032)

Well if it's their defense they need to substantiate it. Obviously the plaintiff has a theory, they filed the case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by usrbinbash on Monday January 23, 2023 @06:01AM (#34487436)

I am not anthropomorphizing anything, because this is literally what happens. The model is taught, by having its predictions tested against examples, how images work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by freejazz on Monday January 23, 2023 @10:35AM (#34490024)

You are, that's not what teaching means and it's not what learning means.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by usrbinbash on Monday January 23, 2023 @04:58PM (#34495703)

Okay, then what do these 2 terms mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]