8 ms·
Wow things are moving super fast, but it's scary that everything is being tainted by licensing. Super fun for research, but commercial endeavors are on shady gr
by avereveard 4y ago
Wow things are moving super fast, but it's scary that everything is being tainted by licensing. Super fun for research, but commercial endeavors are on shady grounds.
- breck 4y agoDa Vinci had no licenses. Nor Euclid, Nor Einstein. In the long run, licenses are for losers.
- sebzim4500 4y agoYeah, and there's a reason none of those guys were as rich as e.g. Mark Zuckerburg.
- mr90210 4y agoOk Dude.
- pfisch 4y agoAnd I think we can all agree technical progress under the copyright system is moving much slower than it did back in da vinci's day.... If only we didn't have patents holding us back we would be investing way more in R&D...
- throwayyy479087 4y agoI can’t tell if this is satire, but i literally have autism
- breck 4y agoFine, a modern example: Tim Berners Lee didn't need licenses. Name me someone alive who's innovations are more impactful than his. In the long run, licenses are for losers.
- CaptainNegative 4y agoOpenAI keeps text-davinci-003 proprietary.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- meghan_rain 4y agoHe meant the actual guy
- sebzim4500 4y agoHopefully someone will be brave enough to fight Meta on the LLaMA copyright issue. My concern is that the people who can afford a massive legal battle can also afford to train their own model.
- yieldcrv 4y agoGiven recent guidance from the US Copyright Office, I doubt there are real copyright issues or enforceable restrictions on commercial use. I would say that someone trying to sell the original model would be the only case that could have a real challenge, and even then its not that clear cut to me. Everyone else using these fine tuned models, I don't think there is a case. Everyone's making non-copyrightable scaffolding. Read the recent USCO guidance. You can monetize and sell things that have no copyright protection, you just can't prevent others from doing it too. aside from trying to make it inconvenient with the packaging.
- brookst 4y agoThere’s a big difference between copyright for material produced by a model, and copyright on the software and weights for the model. As far as I know, USPTO has said that works crested primarily by AI may not receive copyright protection, but I don’t think there’s any indication that the software to run AI is not copyrightable. Maybe?
- sam0x17 4y agoWe clearly need to run the weights _through_ a GPT model because that seems to strip copyright from them :D
- politician 4y agoYou can use the summarize, generate technique to strip copyright from source code too.
- Zuiii 4y agoThe code to train and run the model perhaps, but model weights lack two fundamental requirements available in normal code: human authorship and creativity. Because these models were the result of a purely mechanical process and thus lack these properties, they can't be eligible for copyright protection. At least not under current US law. That said, regulatory capture is strong in the US. It would not surprise me if we see these laws changed.
- graphe 4y agoWon't stop those that are willing to pull an Uber or Nathan Fielder it. It's not commercial, it's a parody or a non profit organization.
- sva_ 4y agoI wonder if when you train a model based on the weights of another model, do the owners of the original model have any sort of copyright claim? They trained it on data on which they had no copyright claim either, fwiw.
- bob1029 4y agoWhy bother with the weights when you can just take the literal output of another model and consume as part of your training corpus? What kind of copyright claims can be made against the content generated by a model wielding the desired weights?
- sva_ 4y agoIn fine-tuned models, for example, you may only train a real subset of the weights. Who is the copyright owner now and what is the justification? There might be other ways of transfer-learning where you can greatly benefit from the pretrained weights, some of which may have not yet been discovered.
- bob1029 4y ago> In fine-tuned models, for example, you may only train a real subset of the weights. I am not sure to what degree this applies throughout the various offerings. We are finding that "fine" tuning cuts pretty damn deep. For instance, with OpenAI you can start with base Curie/Davinci and build an effective chat bot that makes ChatGPT look incompetent in a very narrow vertical slice of some specialized domain.
- sam0x17 4y agoAccording to the US Copyright office's recent ruling, nothing generated by these models can be copyrighted (!), so in theory you should be fine!
- chatmasta 4y agonit: that wasn't a "ruling" so much as it was "guidance" [0] [1] [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
- kvetching 4y agoThe question is, who's going to stop us from using it for commercial grounds. Most companies that would use these models would be startups and are years away from any sort of potential audit that may occur.