# AI affecting Stack Overflow and Reddit **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Tags:** ai\ **Created:** [June 6, 2023, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120 "2023-06-06T21:44:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/101 "2023-06-14T14:53:04Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Maybe Getty should be working on their cybersecurity if millions of their images can be copied from them without permission. One might think that Getty lets just anyone look at their pictures at any time, without a license, permission, or anything. …it isn’t a cybersecurity problem. You are allowed to look at Getty images. There aren’t any restrictions on looking. But don’t pretend that AI is just “looking at the images.” > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > All Intelligences need something to train on, they all build on what was done before, and none of them have ever paid the artist for the right to look at their work. AI isn’t a real intelligence. Its software. And that software isn’t merely “looking at work.” ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/102 "2023-06-14T16:01:33Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You are allowed to look at Getty images. There aren’t any restrictions on looking. What if I think about the images? Is that OK? Am I allowed to consider the composition choices and lighting while I look? What if I use a tool to analyze the image Getty lets me look at? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/103 "2023-06-14T17:33:00Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But don’t pretend that AI is just “looking at the images.” You make that assertion often. You genuinely seem to mistake it for being a settled objective fact and not, like, your opinion, man. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/104 "2023-06-15T00:37:34Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > What if I use a tool to analyze the image Getty lets me look at? > [@Getty](#): > > 1. No Machine Learning, AI, or Biometric Technology Use. Unless explicitly authorised in a Getty Images invoice, sales order confirmation or licence agreement, you may not use content (including any caption information, keywords or other metadata associated with content) for any machine learning and/or artificial intelligence purposes, or for any technologies designed or intended for the identification of natural persons. Additionally, Getty Images does not represent or warrant that consent has been obtained for such uses with respect to model-released content. > **[Getty Images](https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/eula)** > > Getty Images. Find high resolution royalty-free images, editorial stock photos, vector art, video footage clips and stock music licensing at the richest image search photo library online. …if you haven’t purchased a licence then you are subject to existing intellectual property laws, which is in part what the current Getty lawsuit is all about. If you _have_ purchased a licence, then no, you _cannot_ use that content for any machine learning and/or artificial intelligence purposes without the express permission of Getty without violating the terms of the licence. > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > You genuinely seem to mistake it for being a settled objective fact and not, like, your opinion, man. Is it your position that AI is merely looking at images? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/105 "2023-06-15T01:58:45Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Is it your position that AI is merely looking at images? Yes, it is. We have had this debate over and over. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/106 "2023-06-15T02:15:25Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > > [@Princhester](#): > > > > Mostly what AI is going to do is put together responses derived from a broad knowledge base, and is no more going to infringe copyright than any non-AI writer who does research then writes an article or similar. > > The infringement under discussion here is the processing and monetization of content _without_ the permission of the rights holder. > > > [@Princhester](#): > > > > There will be edge cases where AI presents material that is too close to digested copyright material. > > The issue is that AI doesn’t work unless it has something to train on, and most of the content it has been trained on was done without the permission or compensation to the copyright holders. This will be the last time I go around this particular circle but I’ll explain one more time Facebook’s terms allow it to use its content for any purpose connected with its supply of services. So it can use its content to train AI for the purpose of providing facebook content. Once it’s trained its AI on that content, it can then monetise that AI, by selling it externally because as long as the AI doesn’t reproduce the content, it is not in itself infringing copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/107 "2023-06-15T02:28:11Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Yes, it is. We have had this debate over and over. …“AI is merely looking at images” is hardly an argument that would stand up in court, let alone here. If all it did was “look”, then it wouldn’t be able to do everything else that it does. > [@Princhester](#): > > So it can use its content to train AI for the purpose of providing facebook content. Allowable under the TOS. > [@Princhester](#): > > Once it’s trained its AI on that content, it can then monetise that AI, by selling it externally because as long as the AI doesn’t reproduce the content, it is not in itself infringing copyright. Not explicitly allowed under the TOS, which again, states that “This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services.” Using that content to create an AI for the purposes of improving Facebook’s Products and services is fine: but then _selling_ that AI is not as it falls outside the scope of the licence. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/108 "2023-06-15T02:31:36Z")
Once the AI has been trained, it is not an infringement of anyone’s copyright for the AI to be sold. I explained this a dozen posts back. If this were not true, then a researcher using copyright materials to produce their own paper would be infringing copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/109 "2023-06-15T02:37:31Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …“AI is merely looking at images” is hardly an argument that would stand up in court, let alone here. I don’t give the first flying fuck about something “standing up in court” or not, I’m talking about what actually happens in the neural net machine learning models. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/110 "2023-06-15T02:38:46Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Once the AI has been trained, it is not an infringement of anyone’s copyright for the AI to be sold. I explained this a dozen posts back. …this isn’t about an infringement of copyright. Its about an infringement of the _licence_. The licence grants Facebook permission to use uploaded content in a certain way. It can’t use that content outside of the scope of that licence. Copyright is not relevant here. Because as I’ve already stated: the uploader might (for a number of different reasons) not be the copyright holder. > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > I don’t give the first flying fuck about something “standing up in court” or not, I’m talking about what actually happens in the neural net machine learning models. If this was what actually happened, then it would hold up in court. But AI doesn’t have eyes. It isn’t merely “looking.” ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/111 "2023-06-15T02:43:05Z")
…@Darren_Garrison: my apologies if things are getting heated, and for anything I’ve said or done that has contributed to any escalation. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/112 "2023-06-15T02:47:17Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If this was what actually happened, then it would hold up in court. And maybe it will. It has already been asserted to be legal in Japan [https://technomancers.ai/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/](https://technomancers.ai/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/) And Israel [https://technomancers.ai/israel-no-training-data-copyright-uae-open-source-falcon-llm/](https://technomancers.ai/israel-no-training-data-copyright-uae-open-source-falcon-llm/) ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/113 "2023-06-15T02:49:56Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …@Darren_Garrison: my apologies if things are getting heated, and for anything I’ve said or done that has contributed to any escalation. NP, it is just the legal implications of the output of AI learning is a complete non sequitur to me when discussing the technical details of what is happening it the software. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/114 "2023-06-15T02:54:52Z")
BTW, _just_ those two countries making it legal kills AI regulation, because anyone wanting to create/host AI can do it from there. But the US isn’t going to regulate AI anyway, because money. > **[AI Regulation Is Dead, Nvidia Killed it - Technomancers.ai](https://technomancers.ai/ai-regulation-is-dead-nvidia-killed-it/)** > > AI Regulation is dead in the United States. Any chance of near-term regulation ended when Nvidia announced earnings.  For those that missed it: Nvidia posted surprisingly high first-quarter earnings on sales of datacenter GPUs. These GPUs are... > **[How can we possibly be in a bull market right now? Two letters: AI | CNN...](https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/investing/bull-market-artificial-intelligence/index.html)** > > The Eurozone has sunk into recession and economists worry that the United States is next. We’re worrying about rate hikes, inflation, lower spending, layoffs, surging mortgage costs and a war in Europe. So what explains a bull market in a bear... ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/115 "2023-06-15T02:57:46Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > And maybe it will. It has already been asserted to be legal in Japan > > [https://technomancers.ai/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/](https://technomancers.ai/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/) …nothing is settled. [https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2023060900323/](https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2023060900323/) > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > NP, it is just the legal implications of the output of AI learning is a complete non sequitur to me when discussing the technical details of what is happening it the software. The technical details are relevant to the legal implications. IT won’t be settled by _analogy_. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/116 "2023-06-15T03:00:55Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …this isn’t about an infringement of copyright. > > Its about an infringement of the _licence_. Oh, honestly. Are you here to learn or to nitpick? Copyright operates through a system of licences. The licence granted by users to Facebook is a copyright licence. “Once the AI has been trained, it is not an infringement of anyone’s copyright licence for the AI to be sold. I explained this a dozen posts back.” Better? It is not an infringement of a copyright licence to produce a new work based on one’s research using material to which one has access to under a copyright licence. Indeed, for the first copyright holder to have any rights in an original work produced by the licencee by use of the material, the licence would explicitly need to say that which Facebook’s terms do not. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/117 "2023-06-15T03:04:45Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The technical details are relevant to the legal implications. Yeah, but I wasn’t discussing the legal implications. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2023, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/118 "2023-06-15T03:19:57Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Oh, honestly. Are you here to learn or to nitpick? Copyright operates through a system of licences. The licence granted by users to Facebook is a copyright licence. …I’m a commercial photographer who has been dealing in copyright and issuing image licences for my work since 2011. I’m always open to learn. But I’m not sure what it is you are trying to teach me. The licence granted by users to Facebook is **not a copyright licence**. It simply isn’t. If you upload content to Facebook, you grant a “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide licence to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your [privacy](https://www.facebook.com/help/325807937506242?ref=tos) and [application](https://www.facebook.com/help/1727608884153160?ref=tos) settings)”, " solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above." This isn’t a copyright licence. Because the uploader most likely doesn’t own the copyright to start with. The TOS explicitly states that the copyright holder retains ownership of the intellectual property. You don’t grant Facebook a copyright licence. You grant them a licence to use uploaded content in a limited number of ways. > [@Princhester](#): > > Better? Nope. > [@Princhester](#): > > It is not an infringement of a copyright licence to produce a new work based on one’s research using material to which one has access to under a copyright licence. Its an infringement of the TOS. Facebook licences your uploaded content for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services, and you grant them licence to display your work. If you delete that content, the licence is revoked. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2023, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/119 "2023-06-18T06:37:42Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I suspect you would too - what you are really saying is you don’t like what they are doing so you aren’t going to consider whether their actions are defensible. What I’m saying has nothing to with whether someone’s actions are defensible or not. As I said, the issue is about making excuses. In this case, it’s specifically about manufacturing excuses on behalf of a company accused of wrongdoing, when you don’t know if they are accurate. Your counterargument was that, sometimes, a company is so hated that any defense would actually make things worse. And that they need to lie low until people forget. But, if you’re out there making excuses for them, people won’t forget. (And presumably, you want to defend them, or you wouldn’t be making excuses). I have no problem with defending people who actually need defending, who can’t defend themselves. But that’s not the case here. The PR team is defending them. My underlying principle here is that you shouldn’t make excuses on behalf of someone accused of wrongdoing. You don’t know if your excuse is true, but excuses have a way of becoming the accepted narrative–at least among those who like the accused. And all that does is get in the way of figuring out the actual truth. Yes, someone who can’t defend themselves would change things. At that point, it would be good to do your best to figure out what actually happened and defend them. But that’s not the case with a company like Reddit. Heck, having a competent PR department is all the more reason not to feel the need to make excuses. (And I hate that I can’t seem to ever explain myself in less than 5 paragraphs. Sure, they’re short paragraphs, designed to be easier to parse on a screen than longer ones, but still.) Also, who judges people’s actions based on whether they _like_ what they are doing? There are plenty of things I don’t like that aren’t morally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2023, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120/120 "2023-06-18T10:38:57Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > But that’s not the case with a company like Reddit. Which is exactly where I disagree with you for reasons previously stated. Their current PR strategy is as far I as I can make out a total clusterfark and the better strategy would be to keep their mouth shut. Anyway, I’m done with helping them out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-affecting-stack-overflow-and-reddit/985120.md?page=7)