41–49 of 49 posts
Ok. I may as well come clean. For the past 36 years, I have been ingesting all of the information available to train a model called b33-j0r I didn’t mean to read your books, they were mostly trash. I’m so sorry for reading things you published!
What are we going to class these AI's as though? If I read a book and then tell someone else about it, that isn't copyright infringement, if the AI 'reads' the book and tells someone else about it, they are claiming it is?
If I throw my computer in the trash can it isn't murder, but throwing a baby in the trash can is! Totally wacky, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you write a book where Harry, Ron and Hermione go to a magic school you will get sued. If you change the names, perhaps you can claim it's unrelated.
Only if you try to sell it... Otherwise its legally protected. https://archiveofourown.org/admin_posts/5857 "Free use" legality of these models is what interests me the most. For instance, what if someone releases an excellent model specifically for producing entire Harry Potter stories? What if the entire training dataset was reworded by an LLM so no one can prove it contains any plagiarized material? Is the trainer…
Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design but using LLM instead of humans?
>They argue that ChatGPT's ability to produce detailed summaries of their works indicates their books were included in datasets used to train the technology. This just isn't true. The authors have detailed summaries of their books on Wikipedia, that claim seems unsustainable. There are actually interesting legal questions about AI, but this case seems not that interesting. I don't even see how the authors would demon…
It seems relatively straight forward (famous last words) to assess whether actual copyrighted text is embedded within the network. If you can prompt output that includes verbatim extracts when the copyright avoidance post-processing is disabled then you know that it has been consumed. Of course whether that was purposeful or inadvertently as a part of the larger training set would not be determined but you would know…
No, you know that likely that part was consumed. You would need to show that it will generate arbitrary passages from the text.
And LLMs are inherently random, so proof that this happens is very difficult to obtain and showing that it is actual output nearly impossible, especially if you just have API access and can't use the model directoy (e.g. fix the RNG seed).
If you have that you can debate if it is/isn't fair use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems relatively straight forward (famous last words) to assess whether actual copyrighted text is embedded within the network. If you can prompt output that includes verbatim extracts when the copyright avoidance post-processing is disabled then you know that it has been consumed. Of course whether that was purposeful or inadvertently as a part of the larger training set would not be determined but you would know…
> If you can prompt output that includes verbatim extracts If I create a program that picks random words from a dictionary and I end up with a seed that generates that text verbatim, then does that mean my program contains the copyrighted text? You might be able to craft an intricate prompt that just happens to recreate that copyrighted text. Run it enough times until you get it verbatim and done.
And LLMs do that, except prior to picking the word, they do complex statistics to figure out the probability distributions of those words.
Almost certainly some combination of input and RNG seed will produce any "small" combination of words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Essentially they want a copyright on knowledge, Such a law can be misused. Also its hard to prove this just by looking at the weights, and for something as large as GPT-3.5 it would not be easy to prove this.
You’re right. Knowledge provided by authors isn’t unique and as long as AI doesn’t literally cite complete chapters word for word, this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with copyright.
Ok. I may as well come clean. For the past 36 years, I have been ingesting all of the information available to train a model called b33-j0r I didn’t mean to read your books, they were mostly trash. I’m so sorry for reading things you published!
Presumably you paid for some of the trash you read, either through buying a book outright, borrowing from your library (taxes), etc?
But how are we going to compensate Kurt Cobain, the Beatles, Beethoven, and random sounds I heard from my backyard for my supposedly original works on my soundcloud?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems relatively straight forward (famous last words) to assess whether actual copyrighted text is embedded within the network. If you can prompt output that includes verbatim extracts when the copyright avoidance post-processing is disabled then you know that it has been consumed. Of course whether that was purposeful or inadvertently as a part of the larger training set would not be determined but you would know…
> you can prompt output that includes verbatim extracts when the copyright avoidance post-processing is disabled then you know that it has been consumed. No, you know that likely that part was consumed. You would need to show that it will generate arbitrary passages from the text. And LLMs are inherently random, so proof that this happens is very difficult to obtain and showing that it is actual output nearly impossi…