5 ms·

No, it isn't. If I publish something on the internet, I am only making it available for people to read. That does not give anyone the right to use it in other

by rrwo 4y ago

No, it isn't. If I publish something on the internet, I am only making it available for people to read. That does not give anyone the right to use it in other ways.

verdverm 4y ago
There is a thing called "fair use" that lets people do more than just read your copyrighted works. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html We make use of this exception on HN all the time, like this, from the link above: > How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission? > Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.
- waynesonfire 4y ago
  When the entire work is synthesized for the purpose of training a model it's not "limited portions" It makes sense there is no limit on the number of words that can be used under fair use, but it's certainly less than all of them.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    Context matters. You are taking one FAQ question and generalizing. It is permissible to reproduce or show complete works in education, depending on the context. It is also completely normal to read copyrighted work in private, learn something from it, and then answer questions about that work publicly. The questions around LLMs learning from copyrighted material are still open and need to be settled in court. I personally imagine finding infringement would impose more harm on society and progress than letting the models acquire knowledge from these copyrighted works.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      > letting the models acquire knowledge from these copyrighted works I'm gagging at the nonsensical anthropomorphizing being done to end-run the fact that what the LLMs are doing is copying.
      - verdverm 4y ago
        You make a lot of condescending or toxic remarks on HN. You might want to consider how that affects your ability to sway others with your comments. Please chill > the fact that what the LLMs are doing is copying. I disagree, the training process creates token representations and weighted connections between them. The models later produce probabilistic token sequences, not so unlike what our meat bodies do, though by very different mechanisms. The fact that certain sequences can be reproduced verbatim is likely a consequence of overfitting. They certainly cannot reproduce all training data verbatim. It would be interesting to know the features around what can and cannot be, and how.
        freejazz 4y ago
        > The models later produce probabilistic token sequences, not so unlike what our meat bodies do, though by very different mechanisms. Your response to me calling out your baseless anthropomorphizing was to double down on it? It's amusing to me that you don't think you are condescending.
        verdverm 4y ago
        It seems you don't know what anthropomorphizing actually means based on your over application of the word. ChatGPT can help you with that ;]
k2enemy 4y ago
But that's also not how copyright works. At least in the Unites States, the protections offered by copyright center around reproduction, performance, and derivative works[1]. If the AI models are reproducing copyrighted works, then that's a problem. And it does look like there are some examples where that might be happening beyond notions of fair use. But slupring up copyrighted content to train a model seems to fall under allowed use. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
- thfuran 4y ago
  Training a model maybe, but is it clear that the output of the model isn't a derivative work?
  - Filligree 4y ago
    To about the same degree as the output of a human. I just started writing a new novel. It's an interesting, in my opinion highly novel fantasy/SF(ish) story, for once not fanfiction of anything that's still in copyright -- most people wouldn't count stories based on ancient norse mythology as 'fanfiction' -- but that doesn't mean it isn't derivative. It means, instead of naming two or three things it's derivative of, I can name ten to fifteen. That's normal. All stories are derivative, and if you point me at an author who claims theirs aren't, you're pointing at a liar. The job of an author is to put the building blocks together in a new and interesting form, not to make them up from whole cloth. It's impossible to invent more than two or three truly novel ideas per day, even if you're incredibly imaginative, and most of those won't be any good. The difference between humans and AIs, nowadays, seem to be that the AIs use millions of sources instead of ten to fifteen. Or, alternately, that they use none -- and theirs is less derivative -- because certainly everything I've ever read goes into my writing, not just the things I recognise I'm using.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      >To about the same degree as the output of a human. No. Full stop. Humans aren't stochastic parrots. Pointing to a lack of understanding about what exactly happens in the human mind is, FULL STOP, not evidence that LLMs are doing the same things humans do.
Terretta 4y ago
For clarity, the term is about rights to make copies. It in no way blocks right to absorb, understand, or stand upon for the next idea.

by rrwo 4y ago

No, it isn't. If I publish something on the internet, I am only making it available for people to read. That does not give anyone the right to use it in other ways.

verdverm 4y ago

There is a thing called "fair use" that lets people do more than just read your copyrighted works. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html We make use of this exception on HN all the time, like this, from the link above: > How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission? > Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.

waynesonfire 4y ago
When the entire work is synthesized for the purpose of training a model it's not "limited portions" It makes sense there is no limit on the number of words that can be used under fair use, but it's certainly less than all of them.
- verdverm 4y ago
  Context matters. You are taking one FAQ question and generalizing. It is permissible to reproduce or show complete works in education, depending on the context. It is also completely normal to read copyrighted work in private, learn something from it, and then answer questions about that work publicly. The questions around LLMs learning from copyrighted material are still open and need to be settled in court. I personally imagine finding infringement would impose more harm on society and progress than letting the models acquire knowledge from these copyrighted works.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    > letting the models acquire knowledge from these copyrighted works I'm gagging at the nonsensical anthropomorphizing being done to end-run the fact that what the LLMs are doing is copying.
    - verdverm 4y ago
      You make a lot of condescending or toxic remarks on HN. You might want to consider how that affects your ability to sway others with your comments. Please chill > the fact that what the LLMs are doing is copying. I disagree, the training process creates token representations and weighted connections between them. The models later produce probabilistic token sequences, not so unlike what our meat bodies do, though by very different mechanisms. The fact that certain sequences can be reproduced verbatim is likely a consequence of overfitting. They certainly cannot reproduce all training data verbatim. It would be interesting to know the features around what can and cannot be, and how.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        > The models later produce probabilistic token sequences, not so unlike what our meat bodies do, though by very different mechanisms. Your response to me calling out your baseless anthropomorphizing was to double down on it? It's amusing to me that you don't think you are condescending.
        verdverm 4y ago
        It seems you don't know what anthropomorphizing actually means based on your over application of the word. ChatGPT can help you with that ;]

k2enemy 4y ago

But that's also not how copyright works. At least in the Unites States, the protections offered by copyright center around reproduction, performance, and derivative works[1]. If the AI models are reproducing copyrighted works, then that's a problem. And it does look like there are some examples where that might be happening beyond notions of fair use. But slupring up copyrighted content to train a model seems to fall under allowed use. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

thfuran 4y ago
Training a model maybe, but is it clear that the output of the model isn't a derivative work?
- Filligree 4y ago
  To about the same degree as the output of a human. I just started writing a new novel. It's an interesting, in my opinion highly novel fantasy/SF(ish) story, for once not fanfiction of anything that's still in copyright -- most people wouldn't count stories based on ancient norse mythology as 'fanfiction' -- but that doesn't mean it isn't derivative. It means, instead of naming two or three things it's derivative of, I can name ten to fifteen. That's normal. All stories are derivative, and if you point me at an author who claims theirs aren't, you're pointing at a liar. The job of an author is to put the building blocks together in a new and interesting form, not to make them up from whole cloth. It's impossible to invent more than two or three truly novel ideas per day, even if you're incredibly imaginative, and most of those won't be any good. The difference between humans and AIs, nowadays, seem to be that the AIs use millions of sources instead of ten to fifteen. Or, alternately, that they use none -- and theirs is less derivative -- because certainly everything I've ever read goes into my writing, not just the things I recognise I'm using.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >To about the same degree as the output of a human. No. Full stop. Humans aren't stochastic parrots. Pointing to a lack of understanding about what exactly happens in the human mind is, FULL STOP, not evidence that LLMs are doing the same things humans do.

Terretta 4y ago

For clarity, the term is about rights to make copies. It in no way blocks right to absorb, understand, or stand upon for the next idea.