4 ms·

Isn't this just to protect them from liability? If someone claims that their LLM hurt them in some way, they can say that they had nothing to do with it and tha

Isn't this just to protect them from liability? If someone claims that their LLM hurt them in some way, they can say that they had nothing to do with it and that they tried to prevent its spread. Also, it could be a maneuver to prevent the genericization of the word LLaMa, which they may want to continue using.

chatmasta 4y ago
Good question. Is there a copy of the actual DMCA notice available? I'd like to read their specific phrasing. (Also: great username!) EDIT: DMCA here [0]. It does sound like they're asserting copyright on the "content," i.e. presumably the weights themselves. [0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/03/2023-03-21-meta.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/03/2023-03-2...
- thfuran 4y ago
  Is that a defensible claim in the US? No human designed those weights; they're the output of some algorithm run on a bunch of data.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    There are definitely some good arguments why it wouldn't be defensible (e.g. the phone book argument), but of course this is all new and remains to be seen. The other interesting aspect of this is that they're classifying it as unauthorized content distribution. Meta was already distributing the weights, but limited their distribution to "researchers" with approved credentials. It was one of those researchers who leaked the weights originally. So it's not like they were reverse engineered from a binary or exfiltrated out of FB HQ. That might be an important bit of nuance.
    - curiousllama 4y ago
      The phone book argument is super interesting. I wonder if it would hold, though: Wikipedia suggests it relies on the re-user having a new “selection & arrangement.” Kinda tough to rearrange model weights!
      - aftbit 4y ago
        What about by fine-tuning using LoRA? That would introduce new layers and re-arrange the data for additional uses.
  - fweimer 4y ago
    Yeah, it seems that would require a fairly fundamental shift in how copyright is understood in the U.S. Not something that should happen during routine processing of DMCA notices. The EU is different, it recognizes copyright-like rights in databases and database works, which is why the cavalier attitude of U.S.-oriented organizations to these matters tends to annoy me. For example, the FSF does not actually check that certain non-code data files are legally unencumbered. They merely disclaim any copyright of their own. But for all we know, that could be wishful thinking.
    - chatmasta 4y ago
      Early indications [0] [1] from the US Copyright Office seem to suggest AI-produced works will not be copyrightable: > If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. However, this guidance seems primarily about the stuff you create _with_ AI, not necessarily the model weights used in the AI itself. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05... [1] Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        AI weights are as much a mechanical, non-creative result of the training set and the netowrk initial state as other AI outputs are a mechanical, non-creative result of the prompt and the network trained state, so except that the input is bigger for the weights case for the same model as it would be for the output case, I don't see a difference.
        chatmasta 4y ago
        I agree. But it's not like we could force companies to release the weights of their models. We might obtain them in other ways, such as unauthorized leaks, or reverse engineering. But if the company didn't intend to release them, does that mean they're protectable as a trade secret? And if so, are trade secrets enforceable in the same way as copyrights? (Also, another element to this case is that GitHub is owned by Microsoft, who has a conflict of interest with Meta in terms of ChatGPT vs. LLaMA)
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The only way you can use the DMCA is around copyright-protected content, its a copyright-law rule, not a general C&D.

chatmasta 4y ago

Good question. Is there a copy of the actual DMCA notice available? I'd like to read their specific phrasing. (Also: great username!) EDIT: DMCA here [0]. It does sound like they're asserting copyright on the "content," i.e. presumably the weights themselves. [0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/03/2023-03-21-meta.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/03/2023-03-2...

thfuran 4y ago
Is that a defensible claim in the US? No human designed those weights; they're the output of some algorithm run on a bunch of data.
- chatmasta 4y ago
  There are definitely some good arguments why it wouldn't be defensible (e.g. the phone book argument), but of course this is all new and remains to be seen. The other interesting aspect of this is that they're classifying it as unauthorized content distribution. Meta was already distributing the weights, but limited their distribution to "researchers" with approved credentials. It was one of those researchers who leaked the weights originally. So it's not like they were reverse engineered from a binary or exfiltrated out of FB HQ. That might be an important bit of nuance.
  - curiousllama 4y ago
    The phone book argument is super interesting. I wonder if it would hold, though: Wikipedia suggests it relies on the re-user having a new “selection & arrangement.” Kinda tough to rearrange model weights!
    - aftbit 4y ago
      What about by fine-tuning using LoRA? That would introduce new layers and re-arrange the data for additional uses.
- fweimer 4y ago
  Yeah, it seems that would require a fairly fundamental shift in how copyright is understood in the U.S. Not something that should happen during routine processing of DMCA notices. The EU is different, it recognizes copyright-like rights in databases and database works, which is why the cavalier attitude of U.S.-oriented organizations to these matters tends to annoy me. For example, the FSF does not actually check that certain non-code data files are legally unencumbered. They merely disclaim any copyright of their own. But for all we know, that could be wishful thinking.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    Early indications [0] [1] from the US Copyright Office seem to suggest AI-produced works will not be copyrightable: > If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. However, this guidance seems primarily about the stuff you create _with_ AI, not necessarily the model weights used in the AI itself. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05... [1] Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      AI weights are as much a mechanical, non-creative result of the training set and the netowrk initial state as other AI outputs are a mechanical, non-creative result of the prompt and the network trained state, so except that the input is bigger for the weights case for the same model as it would be for the output case, I don't see a difference.
      - chatmasta 4y ago
        I agree. But it's not like we could force companies to release the weights of their models. We might obtain them in other ways, such as unauthorized leaks, or reverse engineering. But if the company didn't intend to release them, does that mean they're protectable as a trade secret? And if so, are trade secrets enforceable in the same way as copyrights? (Also, another element to this case is that GitHub is owned by Microsoft, who has a conflict of interest with Meta in terms of ChatGPT vs. LLaMA)
dragonwriter 4y ago
The only way you can use the DMCA is around copyright-protected content, its a copyright-law rule, not a general C&D.