Yesterday, the non-profit organization Center for AI Safety about the existential risks of AI: released a one-sentence statement “ ” Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war The statement was signed by 350 prominent AI researchers and industry leaders such as OpenAI CEO, , Google CEO, Demis Hassabis, and Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei. Earlier this month, the same three tech leaders to discuss future AI regulations.  AI is one of the few industries where major companies ask the regulators to impose boundaries on what they can and cannot do, usually, it works the other way around. Sam Altman DeepMind met with the Biden administration The mid-to-long-term AI risks are serious, although difficult to understand and predict. In this light, new copyright infringement issues posed by gigantic generative AI models, may not seem like a big deal. There is certainly not any life-or-death urgency involved in clarifying the legal landscape. On the other hand, the tension between generative AI models and copyright law is imminent and the dangers are easy to understand and explain. The Copyright Issues Before Open AI’s commercial breakthrough with , and before the competitive race among BigTech companies to develop larger and more impressive AI models, legal scholars were discussing who would own the right to a piece of original work created by an AI. As it turns out, the question of authorship has had very little practical relevance.  Neither providers nor users of generative AI models have shown much interest in claiming rights over content generated by AI. ChatGPT More relevant and pressing issues are: If using large volumes of copyright-protected material in the training process of large AI models is infringing the rights of copyright holders, and 2) What if outputs generated by AI models look suspiciously similar to copyrighted works used in the training process? In my next post, I will attempt to answer both questions by looking at the AI image model which was recently targeted with lawsuits from two different fronts. In this post, I will provide some relevant background information on the EU’s upcoming AI Act and the debate about transparency requirements. Stable Diffusion The EU AI Act and Foundation Models The European Union agreed on a on the 11th of May. Among the changes from previous drafts comes additional regulation of so-called “foundation models”. Compromise Text for its EU AI Act A  foundation model is defined as . Examples of AI model that falls into this category is ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion. "an AI system model that is trained on broad data at scale, is designed for the generality of output, and can be adapted to a wide range of distinctive tasks" The Compromise Text sets out requirements for developers of foundational models to register the model in an EU database. In this context, they have to disclose certain information and technical documentation of a range of factors related to the development of the model. According to Section C in ANNEX VIII, foundation model providers such as OpenAI and would be required to disclose data sources and which training resources are used in the development of their models. Google In addition to the requirements in ANNEX VIII, providers of foundational models are among other things required to “ (Article 28b (4) (c)). document and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of the use of training data protected under copyright law” This provision is interesting and I am curious to learn how it will be interpreted in practice. OpenAI has famously not revealed anything about how or with what data GPT-4 was trained. Once the EU's AI Act enters into force, this has to change if they wish to continue operating in the EU. OpenAI, Upcoming Regulations & Copyright Issues It seems like OpenAI is speaking in two tongues. On one hand, Sam Altman and his team support AI regulation and worry about the future implications of AI and its dangers to humanity. On the other hand, they have so far refused to open up GPT-4 for public scrutiny due to competitive concerns. OpenAI’s split-personality is foreseeable since the company has a stated mission , while they are also riding on a ten-billion-dollar investment from Microsoft. The strange mixture of altruistic concerns for humanity and colossal funding from BigTech makes me wonder if OpenAI is willing to play ball with regulators, or if it will be more profitable for them to not do so and remain closed. “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity” While the training process behind GPT-4 is closed for public scrutiny, we can be sure of one thing: it includes the use of copyright-protected material on an unfathomably large scale. which consists of more than 15 million domains and it still only accounts for a relatively small part of the size of GPT-3’s complete training data set. Presumably, the large majority of text GPT-3 used to analyze and learn from was protected by copyright. Washington Post analyzed the Google C4 dataset I wonder if and how OpenAI and other providers of foundation models can prepare a “sufficiently detailed summary" of all this data in accordance with EU's AI Act. The interpretation is important. Last Wednesday, if OpenAI could not comply with the upcoming EU regulations. He has since reversed the statement in a Tweet from last Friday, where he clarified: " . " Sam Altman floated the idea of leaving EU We are excited to continue to operate here and of course have no plans to leave At a recent event in London during , the : Sam Altman’s “Euro tour” OpenAI CEO said " " The current draft of the EU AI Act would be over-regulating, but we have heard it's going to get pulled back Dragos Tudorache, an EU parliament member who is leading the drafting of EU proposals disagrees: "I don't see any dilution happening anytime soon (..) These provisions relate mainly to transparency, which ensures the AI and the company building it are trustworthy. I don't see a reason why any company would shy away from transparency."

The Copyright Battle Against AI: Closed vs. Open-Source AI

It's Time for Lawmakers to Regulate the Development and Use of AI

Sign up to my mailing list on www.futuristiclawyer.com for updates and insights

FuturisticLawyer.com

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Internet

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Social Media

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Business

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Bitcoin

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Dao

Too Long; Didn't Read

The Legal Copyright Battle Against AI: An Introduction to the EU’s Requirements

The Legal Copyright Battle Against AI: An Introduction to the EU’s Requirements

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

An In-Depth Response to Sam Altman's "American Equity"

The Noonification: How Often Do NFTs Pass The Howey Test? (1/13/2023)

Darwin's Hybrid Intelligence to Align AI & Human Goals for Startups & VCs

The Noonification: White Man (11/26/2022)

The Noonification: The Metaverse is a Sh*tshow (11/2/2022)

100 Days of AI Day 1: From Newsletter to Podcast, Leveraging AI for Audio Transformation

An In-Depth Response to Sam Altman's "American Equity"

The Noonification: How Often Do NFTs Pass The Howey Test? (1/13/2023)

Darwin's Hybrid Intelligence to Align AI & Human Goals for Startups & VCs

The Noonification: White Man (11/26/2022)

The Noonification: The Metaverse is a Sh*tshow (11/2/2022)

100 Days of AI Day 1: From Newsletter to Podcast, Leveraging AI for Audio Transformation

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps