101–110 of 250 posts
Well done you seem to have liberated an open model trained on open data for blind and visually impaired people. Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03738 Code: https://github.com/microsoft/banknote-net Training data: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microsoft/banknote-net/ref... model: https://github.com/microsoft/banknote-net/blob/main/models/b... Kinda easier to download it straight from github. Its licenced under M…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair use.
The moment you earn money from it, that's not fair use anymore. When I last checked, unlimited access to said models were not free, plus it's not "research" anymore. - Addenda - For the interested parties, the law states the following [0]. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or…
The nature of copyright and plagiarism boils down to paraphrasing, and so long as LLMs sufficiently paraphrase the content it's an open question whether it's copyright infringement and requires new law/precedent.
So the fact they are earning money is a red herring unless they are reproducing the exact same content without paraphrasing (with exception to commentary). E.g. they can quote part of a work while commenting on it.
Where they have gotten into trouble with e.g. NYT afaik is when the LLM reproduced a whole article word for word. I think they have all tried hard to prevent the LLM from ever doing that to avoid that legal risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re applying a double standard to LLM’s and human creators. Any human writer or artist or filmmaker or musician will be influenced by other people’s works, even while those works are still under copyright.
as a human being, and one that does music stuff, i don’t download terabytes of other peoples works from the internet directly into my brain. i don’t have verbatim reproductions of people’s work sitting around on a hard disk in my stomach/lungs/head/feet. LLMs are not humans. They’re essentially a probabilistic compression algorithm (encode data into model weights/decode with prompt to retrieve data).
Depending on how much music you've listened to, you very well may have "downloaded terabytes" of it into your brain. Your argument is specious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're asking why you have to treat people differently than you treat tools and machines.
Well obviously not in general. But when it comes to copyright law specifically, yes absolutely. That is the question I'm asking.
You're either going to get: it's a technological, infinitely scalable process, and the training data should be considered what it is, which is intellectual property that should be being licensed before being used.
...or... It actually is the same as human learning, and it's time we started loading these things up with other baggage to be attached to persons if we're going to accept it's possible for a machine to learn like a human.
There isn't a reasonable middle ground due to the magnitude of social disruption a chattel quasi-human technological human replacement would cause.
You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
And before you knee-jerk "it's a compression algo!", I invite you to archive all your data with an LLMs "compression algo".
You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
LLMs are not massive archives of data. They are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of the size of their training set. And before you knee-jerk "it's a compression algo!", I invite you to archive all your data with an LLMs "compression algo".
You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
LLMs are not massive archives of data. They are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of the size of their training set. And before you knee-jerk "it's a compression algo!", I invite you to archive all your data with an LLMs "compression algo".
And is technically copyright infringement outside fair use exceptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time shifting is protected by 40 years of judicial precedent establishing it as fair use.
This is being tested in the courts currently, https://torrentfreak.com/appeals-court-hears-riaa-and-yout-i...