5 ms·

The README also says this: > This fine-tunes the [GPT-J 6B](https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B) model on the

The README also says this: > This fine-tunes the [GPT-J 6B](https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B) model on the [Alpaca](https://huggingface.co/datasets/tatsu-lab/alpaca https://huggingface.co/datasets/tatsu-lab/alpaca) dataset using a Databricks notebook. > Please note that while GPT-J 6B is Apache 2.0 licensed, the Alpaca dataset is licensed under Creative Commons NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0). ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes

dragonwriter 4y ago
> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes. The legal relation between models and training data sets seems murky; of course, with the build tooling, you can also substitute in another instruction-following training set if you want to avoid licensing issues with the Alpaca set, whereas if you aren't concerbed with them, you can just blaze ahead.
thewataccount 4y ago
> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes Can't they also release the fine-tuned weights as non-commercial as well?
dwallin 4y ago
Essentially every model worth anything has been trained on a unfathomably large amount of data under copyright, with every possible licensing scheme you could imagine, under the assumption that it is fair use. While you can argue that it's all built on a house of cards (and a court may well agree with you) it's kind of arbitrary to draw a line here.
- Taek 4y ago
  Fair use via "this is completely impossible to regulate so you might as well embrace it"
- judge2020 4y ago
  > under the assumption that it is fair use. No, because you as a human looking at "art" over your lifetime and learning from it is not "fair use" of the copyright, it's no-use at all. This is the crux of every argument for both for language models and AI Art models, that their tools are learning how to draw, learning what styles and characteristics of input art correspond the most with words, and creating art with that knowledge just like any other human, not simply collaging together different pieces of art.
chpatrick 4y ago
As far as I know the copyright situation for models is ambiguous and also depends on the region. In the US you can't copyright data made by an automated process but you can in the EU, or something to that effect.
yieldcrv 4y ago
> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes or you can raise $30,000,000 right now and worry about the copyright infringement lawsuit in 2026 or never.
ambicapter 4y ago
> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes The implication being that you're only "democratizing" something if people can make money off of it?
- popcorncowboy 4y ago
  Kinda? I (personally) read "democratizing" as intending to be for the benefit of many over the few. Bit duplicitous to preclude access to the means of production in that definition, "for many rather than the few (BUT, wait, the actual economic benefit and utility is still locked away for the few)". But maybe "democratize" is starting to mean something similar to "open". All the good words.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes. The legal relation between models and training data sets seems murky; of course, with the build tooling, you can also substitute in another instruction-following training set if you want to avoid licensing issues with the Alpaca set, whereas if you aren't concerbed with them, you can just blaze ahead.

thewataccount 4y ago

> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes Can't they also release the fine-tuned weights as non-commercial as well?

dwallin 4y ago

Essentially every model worth anything has been trained on a unfathomably large amount of data under copyright, with every possible licensing scheme you could imagine, under the assumption that it is fair use. While you can argue that it's all built on a house of cards (and a court may well agree with you) it's kind of arbitrary to draw a line here.

Taek 4y ago
Fair use via "this is completely impossible to regulate so you might as well embrace it"
judge2020 4y ago
> under the assumption that it is fair use. No, because you as a human looking at "art" over your lifetime and learning from it is not "fair use" of the copyright, it's no-use at all. This is the crux of every argument for both for language models and AI Art models, that their tools are learning how to draw, learning what styles and characteristics of input art correspond the most with words, and creating art with that knowledge just like any other human, not simply collaging together different pieces of art.

chpatrick 4y ago

As far as I know the copyright situation for models is ambiguous and also depends on the region. In the US you can't copyright data made by an automated process but you can in the EU, or something to that effect.

yieldcrv 4y ago

> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes or you can raise $30,000,000 right now and worry about the copyright infringement lawsuit in 2026 or never.

ambicapter 4y ago

> ...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes The implication being that you're only "democratizing" something if people can make money off of it?

popcorncowboy 4y ago
Kinda? I (personally) read "democratizing" as intending to be for the benefit of many over the few. Bit duplicitous to preclude access to the means of production in that definition, "for many rather than the few (BUT, wait, the actual economic benefit and utility is still locked away for the few)". But maybe "democratize" is starting to mean something similar to "open". All the good words.