3 ms·
> Yet, isn’t that effectively what human brains do too? If I want to watch a bunch of movies, I have to pay the theater for each movie, or pay netflix, or what
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> Yet, isn’t that effectively what human brains do too?
If I want to watch a bunch of movies, I have to pay the theater for each movie, or pay netflix, or whatever. The screenplay I write afterwards belongs to me, but the learning process involved me paying for access to others' work. That's what's often missing here. But at the same time, if you train on legally public data, there's no 'theater' to be paid.
(Often, people train on illegally public data though, like the eleuther folks. That's a whole extra can of worms I've ranted about plenty).
Maybe we'll start seeing licenses with a section saying "not for use as training data for commercial models."
- visarga 5y ago> Maybe we'll start seeing licenses with a section saying "not for use as training data for commercial models." Considering that the impact of a single example is extremely small in training a model, and that it is trained on an ungodly amount of examples, then I wonder if the effort of forbidding its use has any real benefits.
- koolhaas 5y agoI would change your question from “does it have any real benefits” to “does it have a practical effect on the model” Benefits to me are clear: giving a developer choice over how their source code is used with for-profit, opaque, next generation ML models. But yes, drop in the ocean in terms of the full data set. But that shouldn’t be an excuse to remove user choice.
- adn 5y agoYes, of course it does, because if every user opted out then the model would not work as well as it does, and github would not be able to profit off the work of others to the degree they are (or will be). Just because they are taking code on a massive scale does not mean the outcome is inevitable: don't get it twisted, copilot only works because of the code human beings have written.