News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by tedivm on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:01PM (#39017349)
Search engines don't replicate the content, they index and point to it. When search engines have been caught replicating content they have been sued or had to work out licenses.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by nickthegreek on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:16PM (#39017618)
Ya that worked out real well for Genius.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by Ukv on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:10PM (#39017500)
Search engine caches work on an opt-out basis, which was found legal in Field v. Google Inc.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by bawolff on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @03:02PM (#39018310)
I mean, generative AI basically involves turning content into vectors in order to try and find related content. If that's not an index structure i don't know what is.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by kelnos on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @04:55PM (#39019685)
The technical definition of how something works is often irrelevant in the eyes of the law. What matters is the output, and its effects.

The output of a search engine is nothing like the output of generative AI.

Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by godelski on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @04:56PM (#39019696)
Most ML are certainly compression systems, as you imply. But reproduction and redistribution of copyright material is quite different than generating a service that allows someone to find said material. The question about caching is a different one, but I doubt it falls under the same intent, as Google is incentivized to cache content to better facilitate the search __and redirection__ service, not to facilitate distribution.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by 8note on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:10PM (#39017512)
How do they make the index without ingesting a copy of the content?
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by smt88 on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:13PM (#39017561)
Storing a copy of the content isn't the relevant part. It's what that copy is used for.

In a search engine, it's used to direct traffic to the original author. In Midjourney, it's used to create an alternative to the original author.

Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by derangedHorse on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:59PM (#39018271)
I certainly use the blurb in search results at times to get an alternative to the original author (especially if the blurbed content is paywalled).
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by smt88 on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @04:48PM (#39019616)
In the US, that blurb is covered by fair use. Google doesn't regurgitate the entire published work.

These many AI lawsuits will likely settle whether training LLMs falls under fair use.

Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by MacsHeadroom on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @11:15PM (#39023215)
> Google doesn't regurgitate the entire published work.

Wrong. Here's Google's cache of an entire paywalled article currently on the front page of HN: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c-xOMj...

You can get these by clicking the three dots next to any search result, expanding the options in the pop-over, and then clicking "cached."

Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by bawolff on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @12:53AM (#39023780)
I mean, it seems like casds of AI regurtitating entire works verbatim is pretty rare. It happens but is unusual.

And also not really what this is about. If AI was just another libgenisis it would be a lot less controversial.