Taggart :donor: (@mttaggart)
infosec.town
Japan determines copyright doesn't apply to LLM/ML training data. > On a global scale, Japan’s move adds a twist to the regulation debate. Current discussions have focused on a “rogue nation” scenario where a less developed country might disregard a global framework to gain an advantage. But with Japan, we see a different dynamic. The world’s third-largest economy is saying it won’t hinder AI research and development. Plus, it’s prepared to leverage this new technology to compete directly with the West. I am going to live in the sea. https://www.biia.com/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/8121669

Taggart (@mttaggart) writes:

Japan determines copyright doesn’t apply to LLM/ML training data.

On a global scale, Japan’s move adds a twist to the regulation debate. Current discussions have focused on a “rogue nation” scenario where a less developed country might disregard a global framework to gain an advantage. But with Japan, we see a different dynamic. The world’s third-largest economy is saying it won’t hinder AI research and development. Plus, it’s prepared to leverage this new technology to compete directly with the West.

I am going to live in the sea.

www.biia.com/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/

  • hallettj@beehaw.orgEnglish
    9·
    11 months ago

    Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If the thinking is that AI learning from others’ works is analogous to humans learning from others’ works then the logical conclusion is that AI is an independent creative, non-human entity. And there is precedent that works created by non-humans cannot be copyrighted. (I’m guessing this is what you are thinking, I just wanted to think it out for myself.)

    I’ve been thinking about this issue as two opposing viewpoints:

    The logic-in-a-vacuum viewpoint says that AI learning from others’ works is analogous to humans learning from others works. If one is not restricted by copyright, neither should the other be.

    The pragmatic viewpoint says that AI imperils human creators, and it’s beneficial to society to put restrictions on its use.

    I think historically that kind of pragmatic viewpoint has been steamrolled by the utility of a new technology. But maybe if AI work is not copyrightable that could help somewhat to mitigate screwing people over.

    • milo128@lemm.ee
      1·
      11 months ago

      allow me to introduce you to the pragmatic and idologically consistent viewpoint, that human creativity is unique and not comparable to ai creativity. Humans draw from experiences and memories, and have a unique perspective that is introduced to their art, while ai just churns through thousands of images and tries to replicate them. Dont assume that just because the results are impressive, that ai creativity is analogous to human creativity.