Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#101

Post by ErroneousBosh »

general1465 wrote: post #12
skilled wrote: post #3

> In response, NVIDIA defended its actions as fair use, noting that books are nothing more than statistical correlations to its AI models. Does this even make sense? Are the copyright laws so bad that a statement like this would actually be in NVIDIA’s favor?

Did you pirated this movie? No I did not, it is fair use because this movie is nothing more than a statistical correlation to my dopamine production.

Did you pirate this movie?

No, I acquired a block of high-entropy random numbers as a standard reference sample.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#102

Post by threethirtytwo »

kelnos wrote: post #95
threethirtytwo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s clear nvidia and every single one of these big AI corps do not want their AIs to violate the law. The intent is clear as day here. Scale is only used for emergence, openAI found that training transformers on the entire internet would make is more then just a next token predictor and that is the intent everyone is going for when building these things.

I don't think that's clear at all. Businesses routinely break the law if they believe the benefits in doing so will outweigh the consequences. I think this is even more common and more brazen when it comes to "disruptive" businesses and technologies.

>Businesses routinely break the law if they believe the benefits in doing so will outweigh the consequences.

I'm saying there's collective incentive among businesses to restrict the LLM from producing illegal output. That is aligned and ultra clear. THAT was my point.

But if LLMs produce illegal output as a side effect and it can't be controlled than your point comes into play here because now they have to weigh the cost + benefit as they don't have a choice in the matter. But that wasn't what I'm getting at. That's your new point, which you introduced here.

In short it is clear all corporations do not want LLMs to produce illegal content and are actively trying to restrict it.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#103

Post by threethirtytwo »

kelnos wrote: post #96
threethirtytwo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er no. I’ve read and remember hundreds of books in my life time. It’s not any more illegal based off scale. The law doesn’t differentiate whether I remember one book or a hundred then there’s no difference for thousands or millions. No wishful thinking here.

What is "scale" in this context? I think arguably 100 books over the span of decades is not "scale". But tens (hundreds?) of thousands of books over the span of a few weeks? That's definitely "scale".

the law doesn't talk about scale, so either is perfectly legal. Memorizing a billion books vs memorizing one book. Same laws apply.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#104

Post by threethirtytwo »

lelanthran wrote: post #82
threethirtytwo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er no. I’ve read and remember hundreds of books in my life time. It’s not any more illegal based off scale. The law doesn’t differentiate whether I remember one book or a hundred then there’s no difference for thousands or millions. No wishful thinking here.

> Er no. I’ve read and remember hundreds of books in my life time. It’s not any more illegal based off scale. I'm not sure you understood what you said, but superficially it appears that you are agreeing with me? Just because it's legal to read 100s of books does not make it legal to slurp up every single piece of produced content ever recorded. We're talking man many orders of magnitude in scale there, and you're th…

No I'm not agreeing with you.

>Just because it's legal to read 100s of books does not make it legal to slurp up every single piece of produced content ever recorded.

The law says you're perfectly in your legal right to slurp up every piece of content ever produced.

>We're talking man many orders of magnitude in scale there, and you're the one who pointed out that scale :-/

I'm aware, and the law doesn't talk about scale.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#105

Post by threethirtytwo »

_trampeltier wrote: post #64
threethirtytwo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense. It’s controversial. Your memory memorizes things in the same way. So what nvidia does here is no different, the AI doesn’t actually copy any of the books. To call training illegal is similar to calling reading a book and remembering it illegal. Our copyright laws are nowhere near detailed enough to specify anything in detail here so there is indeed a logical and technical inconsistency here. I can…

But to train the models they have to download it first (make a copy)

You had to do this for reading too. The words were burned onto your retina as volatile memory before getting processed by your brain.

You retina likely overwrote it's "memory" as soon as you looked at something else, but that's no different than copying and deleting or the more apt analogy: streaming.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#106

Post by g947o »

rpdillon wrote: post #73
haritha-j wrote: post #56

Just to clarify, the most valuable company in the world refuses to pay for digital media?

I see this sentiment posted quite a bit, but have the publishers made any products available that would allow AI training on their works for payment? A naive approach would be to go to an online bookstore and pay $15 for every book, but then you have copyrighted content that is encrypted, that it's a violation of the DMCA to decrypt. I assume you're expecting that they'll reach out and cut a deal with each publishing…

Hmm, didn't Anthropic buy a bunch of used books (like, physical ones), scanned them, and then destroyed them? If Anthropic can do that, surely can NVIDIA

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#107

Post by threethirtytwo »

lelanthran wrote: post #83
kalap_ur wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the scale that matters here, in your example, but intent. With 1 joint, you want to smoke yourself. With 400, you very possibly want to sell it to others. Scale in itself doesnt matter, scale matters only as to the extent it changes what your intention may be.

> It is not the scale that matters here, in your example, but intent. With 1 joint, you want to smoke yourself. With 400, you very possibly want to sell it to others. Scale in itself doesnt matter, scale matters only as to the extent it changes what your intention may be. It sounds then like you're saying that scale does indeed matter in this context, as using every single piece of writing in existence isn't being sl…

It's common knowledge among LLM experts that the current capabilities of LLMs are triggered as emergent properties of training transformers on reams and reams of data.

That is intent of scale. To trigger LLMs to reach this point of "emergence". Whether or not it's AGI is a debate I'm not willing to entertain but everyone pretty much agrees that there's a point where the scale flips from a transformer being an autocomplete machine to something more than that.

That is legal basis for why companies would go for scale with LLMs. It's the same reason why people are allowed to own knives even though knives are known to be useful for murder (as a side effect).

So technically speaking these companies have legal runway in terms of intent. Making an emergent and helpful AI assistant is not illegal, but also making a profit isn't illegal either.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#108

Post by machomaster »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #38
general1465 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you pirated this movie? No I did not, it is fair use because this movie is nothing more than a statistical correlation to my dopamine production.

I saw the movie, but I don't remember it now.

I saw the movie, but I did not watch it.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#109

Post by machomaster »

1over137 wrote: post #60
haritha-j wrote: post #56

Just to clarify, the most valuable company in the world refuses to pay for digital media?

Not spending money (vs spending money) helps make one rich!

Not in the case of Nvidia. Famously, "the more you pay, the more you save".

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#110

Post by dns_snek »

rpdillon wrote: post #73
haritha-j wrote: post #56

Just to clarify, the most valuable company in the world refuses to pay for digital media?

I see this sentiment posted quite a bit, but have the publishers made any products available that would allow AI training on their works for payment? A naive approach would be to go to an online bookstore and pay $15 for every book, but then you have copyrighted content that is encrypted, that it's a violation of the DMCA to decrypt. I assume you're expecting that they'll reach out and cut a deal with each publishing…

Do you believe in private property rights? If the product they want doesn't exist then they're shit out of luck and they must either make one or wait for one to get made. You're arguing that it's okay for them to break the law because doing business legally is really inconvenient.

That would be the end of discussion if we lived in a world governed by the rule of law but we're repeatedly reminded that we don't.

Post reply on HN