3 ms·
>> One possible legal theory: because the algorithm was trained on a text corpus upon which the algorithm's owner has no legal claim. The same can be said abou
by mamon 7y ago
>> One possible legal theory: because the algorithm was trained on a text corpus upon which the algorithm's owner has no legal claim.
The same can be said about human writers: they learn to write based on thousands of "training examples" - the articles and books they read thorough their life.
- beerandt 7y agoA better example is the "copy and paste" news articles that saturate feeds everyday. The exact same set of facts, that were obviously reported originally by a single individual, then rearranged, reworded, and republished by 100's of "reporters"/"bloggers", (sometimes) with an attribute of origin.
- throwawayjava 7y agoNot at all. Or rather, Who knows? Maybe. But certainly, at least today, a SoTA model generating a quality encyclopedia certainly is not doing what human writers do, and is certainly effectively copy/pasting. Maybe in 50 years -- or 10 years with a major breakthrough on the level of general relativity -- that statement might be true. but it's certainly not true of today's deep NLP systems.