Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaupeRanger | Hacker News Reader

No, humans are not Python programs running linear algebra libraries, sucking in mountains of copyrighted data to use at massive scale in corporate products. The fact that this question comes up in EVERY thread about this is honestly sad.

View on HN

It’s like fishing. We have laws for that not because one person with a pole and a line can catch a handful of fish. It’s because that eventually evolved into a machine with many lines and nets harvesting too many fish. They’re both “fishing” but once you reach a scale beyond what one person can reasonably do the intent and effect becomes completely different.

I'm asking about the law. There's a continuously mounting discussion about how existing case law will apply to ML, and to what degree there is liability. I make it very clear that I am interested in hearing from people who are intimate with the legal landscape.

Is it that disgusting to you to discuss the law that you want to derail it by talking about how sad it is to ask?

And there’s no legislation or settled case law yet that says if you build a sufficiently complex computer program to rearrange copyrighted works that the output can be treated like an original work from a human author.

Is case law sufficient to decide on the other side, then? That Apple, Nvidia, etc. are about to be whipped by a massive class action lawsuit?

I don't think so.

Sad? Or maybe an indication that your opinion isn’t the universal truth…

Which of the factual statements do you count as an opinion?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com