James Cameron on AI copyright: humans are models

marcuschong | 24 points

Thing is, he’s right. We learn from all input and a great deal of it is copyrighted — every book or movie we’ve ever seen.

If I tell you something I learned from a copyrighted book, I am not doing something illegal.

If I produce a copy of someone else’s output and state it’s my own, I am. That’s plagiarism. And I think this is the best way to view AIs that create artworks “in the style of” etc — as plagiarism for output, not copyright violation for input.

I, and I am the author of several things including proprietary software (published, sold, even acquired!) and a novel I hope to publish soon, increasingly think copyright is an evil. I like getting income from what I make but I don’t believe in stopping people accessing what I create. Using it to restrict learning absolutely is an evil. And an AI uses it to learn.

vintagedave | a day ago

James is on the board[1] of stability.ai, so not exactly an unbiased opinion.

1. https://stability.ai/board-of-directors

kelseyfrog | a day ago

I think this issue with using these models is something he touches on. As big-hollywood-company-xyz you can ask the writer what were the influences of the work and determine if anything crosses a legal line. You can have a level of trust in what the writer says since their reputation/career is on the line.

With the AI model, it can regurgitate something from the internet word for word and it's on you to check it.

There's a lot of work being done to make AI more transparent but it seems like that has a way to go.

Or you realise that the models are all trained on pirated data anyways and no one cared so if you are a big enough company you can just do whatever you want.

charlie-83 | a day ago

This whole AI is like humans thing is so exhausting. It's obviously not the same thing. A human can't ingest all of the library of Alexandria, and then generate dollars for their employer regurgitating those books.

regularjack | a day ago

I hate this comparison because it ignores the obvious important difference: humans aren’t owned by somebody. When models aren’t used commercially, they should be compared to people for copyright purposes. Its when their outputs are sold for profit that copyright should be applied to the seller of the outputs, eg openai.

BriggyDwiggs42 | 14 hours ago

In other words, "big companies should have a spcial boy copyright exception". I expect both the slopification of everything and enforcement of copyright against individuals to continue.

hooverd | a day ago