Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 3d

If you buy a plumbing book and use the information within to start a plumbing company, have you stolen from the author? Should you have had to ask their permission?

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 3d

Or maybe a referendum. That way 35% can't remove rights from the majority.

1 2

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 3d

Please please don't use Grok. If you have to use a US AI, pick one that doesn't identify as MechaHitler.

www.theguardian.com/technology/2...

Musk’s AI firm forced to delete posts praising Hitler from Grok chatbot

www.theguardian.com

1 1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

Well, it's good to know you support the AI companies processing art and book to then use the result to create drugs; and that more fundamentally you agree that AI _can_ create new things. We're making progress.

I implore you to give some thought to why you exclude 'art' from that same creation.

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

Your choice, but so you know, I have zero skin in the AI game.

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

Okay, we'll set aside the Blue Brain Project and accept your definition. How does that change anything? Why can a human use a plumbing book to launch a plumbing company, but has to seek the artists permission to start a 'hype' company?

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

So do you agree they're doing nothing wrong now in purchasing a book and using that for training ('the purchase is permission'), you're just upset about past behaviour? Or do artists get to enforce their will on what you do with book you bought?

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

Why? Why should you control what I do with the book I bought? If I want to run a program on it that counts all the times words appear that start with an 'e', do you really believe I should have to get your permission? Why can I do that myself but if I ask my computer to do it it's wrong?

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

Well, you can't copyright a style, so you're welcome to 'rip off' any style you like.

I don't see how you can truly believe it creates nothing though unless you haven't really looked. It's literally discovering new drugs.

www.drugtargetreview.com/news/157365/...

First AI-designed drug, Rentosertib, officially named by USAN

Insilico Medicine’s AI-designed drug for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Rentosertib, has been granted an official generic name by USAN.

www.drugtargetreview.com

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

> The purchase is permission

You and I agree. Anthropic is (now) buying a copy of every book they use. This is a good thing.

The arguments being made in the original story is that this is no enough. That artists should be able to say what I (or a company) does with the knowledge in that book.

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

Ad hominem much? If you have _ideas_ you'd like to discuss let me know. If you think I'm AI then stop replying because you're just feeding me training data (beep beep boop boop em dash).

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 4d

I'm guessing there no point to replying here, but someone has to try to counter the echo chamber.

Consider this: you earn money from having learned from thousands of artists works. Yet you did not ask any of these artists for their permission.

5 2

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 5d

Be careful. The "I don't use it so I shouldn't have to fund it" probably isn't something you agree with for schools or healthcare. Funding roadways with a progressive tax really isn't that bad.

The PCs are the worst though. Might I suggest complaining about the AG stuff as an alternative?

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 7d

What do you mean by 'powerful democracy' here? The US doesn't lead any democracy indexes, and I'm not seeing how economic or military power would help (and might actually hurt).

1 1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 8d

Then that's also likely fine provided they don't use the same text/diagrams. You can't copyright ideas or a style. (and a ton of this actually goes on all the time)

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 8d

I think you're getting caught up in 'robot rights' here. It was the human that ran the book through the training process created a transformative work by doing so. The human can then use this transformation to earn money without getting the authors consent.

2 1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 8d

They didn't say buying all the books would bankrupt them. That's what they're doing now, and what they should do/have-done.

My main point is that the author does not get to 'consent' to what transformative uses of their book they allow. If they did libraries would be illegal.

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 8d

Sorry you have such a short attention span

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 8d

They own the copyright to the work, but the training is transformative, just like reading the book is. The author doesn't get to consent to who can read their book, even if that reader might then earn income from what they read.

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 8d

Right, so the author doesn't get to consent to you learning from the book, even if that learning leads to commercial income. You can use the book in an interpretative dance, or post a picture of you reading the book. That's all transformative, just like training an LLM.

2

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 9d

This is about what the judge ruled in the case versus what people think the ruling was.

Anthropic has to buy exactly one (used) copy of a book and can train all the LLMs they want. No royalties, credit, opt-in required.

www.bbc.com/news/article...

US Judge sides with AI firm Anthropic over copyright issue

A US court has ruled Anthropic was not breaching copyright rules when it trained its AI model on books.

www.bbc.com

2

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 9d

Only because they didn't buy a copy of the books. Not because the authors should have to 'opt in', be given credit, be entitled to some of the revenue, etc.

Now they're buying 1 copy of each book and can use that to train all the LLMs they want

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 9d

Or are you? www.bbc.com/news/article...

US Judge sides with AI firm Anthropic over copyright issue

A US court has ruled Anthropic was not breaching copyright rules when it trained its AI model on books.

www.bbc.com

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 9d

I do, and I know the courts have decided it is not copyright violation to train on books for which they have bought 1 used copy. No credit it required, just like you don't have to credit every textbook you've ever learned from

1

Kenny @kenny.macdermid.ca · 9d

If you think LLMs are providing copies is books then you don't understand the technology and you are in direct disagreement with the courts that have decided that it is not a copyright violation.

1