Live data from Hacker News

Judge said Meta illegally used books to build its AI

wired.com

351–352 of 352 posts

Re: Judge said Meta illegally used books to build its AI

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of my point is that you don't need to produce literally equivalent output. Again, if I record and compress "Revenge of the Sith", there's literally zero pixels shared between my recording and the actual movie. Cool, so I can go upload it for free then right? No, I can't. That's because you would be redistributing the actual material, just in a really roundabout way. GenAI models are not that, they're not a dat…

> That's because you would be redistributing the actual material, just in a really roundabout way. Right, which I’m arguing is what LLMs do just in an even more roundabout way. The technical details of LLMs don’t actually matter. We don’t really care if they’re a database or not. The question is do they reproduce the source material? And yeah, pretty much they do, in a lot of instances. Not all, but a lot. To produce…

> To produce yet another analogy, imagine I have a service X. You can pay and I will give you any movie you want. You don’t know how I do it. Is this copyright infringement or not? I would say yes. Now let’s say I reveal the secret - I open up photoshop and painstakingly recreate the movie frame by frame. I might make a mistake here or there. Is this still copyright infringement? I think it is.

Okay, but that is not what's happening here. Demonstratably so. The fact that a model is technically capable of overfitting to certain very repeated points in the training data doesn't mean the entire thing has to be shot down. The non-infringing uses far outweigh the offending ones, by a lot.

If what you say is true, and they do outright copy a lot, then it should be pretty easy for any IP holder to sue anyone who misuses the model that way for copyright infringement on those specific outputs.

Re: Judge said Meta illegally used books to build its AI

#352
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These cases can set precedents that basically shut down all all future "useful" AI implementations if the judges go too far. You can bet that CCP doesn't care one whit about US copyright law if leads to them leapfrogging us, it will definitely be j-johna-jameson-laugh.gif . I think that's the point of the commenter from 20000ft

> if leads to them leapfrogging us They won't be leapfrogging 'us'. They'll be leapfrogging some privately owned, for-profit business . Frankly, I don't give two shits about that, and I fail to see why anyone who doesn't own one of them should give one. If they want me to have skin in the game, they should share either the profits, or the models. Until they do, it's not 'us', it's 'them'.

I care about the USA remaining relevant. If you don't that's fine as well. Have a great life
Post reply on HN