[jhaile]

One aspect that I feel is ignored by the comments here is the geo-political forces at work. If the US takes the position that LLMs can't use copyrighted work or has to compensate all copyright holders – other countries (e.g. China) will not follow suit. This will mean that US LLM companies will either fall behind or be too expensive. Which means China and other countries will probably surge ahead in AI, at least in terms of how useful the AI is.

That is not to say that we shouldn't do the right thing regardless, but I do think there is a feeling of "who is going to rule the world in the future?" tha underlies governmental decision-making on how much to regulate AI.

[oooyay]

Well hell, by that logic average citizens should be able to launder corporate intellectual property because China will never follow suit in adhering to intellectual property law. I'm game if you are.

[jowea]

Isn't that sort of logic precisely why China doesn't adhere to IP law?

[rollcat]

Well I always felt rebellious about the contemporary face of "rules for thee but not for me", specifically regarding copyright.

Musicians remain subject to abuse by the recording industry; they're making pennies on each dollar you spend on buying CDs^W^W streaming services. I used to say, don't buy that; go to a concert, buy beer, buy merch, support directly. Nowadays live shows are being swallowed whole through exclusivity deals (both for artists and venues). I used to say, support your favourite artist on Bandcamp, Patreon, etc. But most of these new middlemen are ready for their turn to squeeze.

And now on top of all that, these artists' work is being swallowed whole by yet another machine, disregarding what was left of their rights.

What else do you do? Go busking?

[seanmcdirmid]

In the long run private IP will eventually become very public despite laws you have, it’s been like that since the Stone Age. The American Industrial Revolution was built partially on stolen IP from Britain. The internet has just sped up diffusion. You can stop it if you are willing to cut the line, but legal action is only some friction and even then only in the short term

[Bjorkbat]

I broadly agree in that sure, unfettered access to copyrighted material will AI more capable, but more capable of what exactly?

For national security reasons I'm perfectly fine with giving LLMs unfettered access to various academic publications, scientific and technical information, that sort of thing. I'm a little more on the fence about proprietary code, but I have a hard time believing there isn't enough code out there already for LLMs to ingest.

Otherwise though, what is an LLM with unfettered access to copyrighted material better at vs one that merely has unfettered access to scientific / technical information + licensed copyrighted material? I would suppose that besides maybe being a more creative writer, the other LLM is far more capable of reproducing copyrighted works.

In effect, the other LLM is a more capable plagiarism machine compared to the other, and not necessarily more intelligent, and otherwise doesn't really add any more value. What do we have to gain from condoning it?

I think the argument I'm making is a little easier to see in the case of image and video models. The model that has unfettered access to copyrighted material is more capable, sure, but more capable of what? Capable of making images? Capable of reproducing Mario and Luigi in an infinite number of funny scenarios? What do we have to gain from that? What reason do we have for not banning such models outright? Not like we're really missing out on any critical security or economic advantages here.

[Teever]

If common culture is an effective substrate to communicate ideas as in we can use shared pop culture references to make metaphors to explain complex ideas then the common culture that large companies have ensnared in excessively long copyrights and trademarks to generate massive profits is a useful thing for an LLM that is designed to convey ideas to have embedded in it.

If I'm learning about kinematics maybe it would be more effective to have comparisons to Superman flying faster than a speeding bullet and no amount of dry textbooks and academic papers will make up for the lack of such a comparison.

This is especially relevant when we're talking about science-fiction which has served as the inspiration for many of the leading edge technologies that we use including stuff like LLMs and AI.

[bigbuppo]

The real problem here is that AI companies aren't even willing to follow the norms of big business and get the laws changed to meet their needs.

[johnnyanmac]

This is pre iselt why we need proportional fees for courts. We can't just let companies treat the law as a cost benefits analysis. They should live in fear of a court result against their favor.

[hulitu]

> One aspect that I feel is ignored by the comments here is the geo-political forces at work. If the US takes the position that LLMs can't use copyrighted work or has to compensate all copyright holders – other countries (e.g. China) will not follow suit.

Oh really ? They didn't had any problem when people installed copyrighted Windows to come after them. BSA. But now Microsoft turns a blind eye because it suits them.

[stonogo]

Big "Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap" energy going on, even if it's difficult for me personally to believe that LLMs contribute in any sense to ruling the world.

[therouwboat]

If AI is so important, maybe it should be owned by the government and free to use for all citizens.

[pc86]

Name two non-military things that the government owns and aren't complete dumpster fires that barely do the thing they're supposed to do.

Even (especially?) the military is a dumpster fire but it's at least very good at doing what it exists to do.

[bgwalter]

The same president that is putting 145% tariffs on China could put 1000% tariffs on Internet chat bots located in China. Or order the Internet cables to be cut as a last resort (citing a national emergency as is the new practice).

I'm not sure at all what China will do. I find it likely that they'll forbid AI at least for minors so that they do not become less intelligent.

Military applications are another matter that are not really related to these copyright issues.

[pc86]

How exactly does one add a tariff to a foreign-based chat bot?

[gruez]

>Or order the Internet cables to be cut as a last resort (citing a national emergency as is the new practice).

what if they route through third countries?

[arp242]

I get what you're saying, but this is just a race to the bottom, no?

It's annoying to see the current pushback against China focusing so much on inconsequential matters with so much nonsense mixed in, because I do think we do need to push back against China on some things.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

The design, manufacture and supply of electronics is far more important than one particular usage, e.g, "LLMs". It has never been a requirement to violate copyrights to produce electronics, or computer software. In fact, arguably there would be no "MicroSoft" were it not for Gates' lobbying for the existence and enforcement of "software copyright". The "Windows" franchise, among others, relies on it. The irony of Microsoft's support for OpenAI is amusing. Copyright enforcement for me but not for thee.

[asddubs]

you could apply that same logic to any IP breaches though, not just AI

[Ekaros]

Your employee steals your source code and sells it to multiple competitors. Why should you have any right to go after those competitors?