3 ms·

This has nothing to do with ChatGPT and everything to do with Amazon tolerating counterfeits and plagiarism. Also, how is this a replica if it was released bef

by senko 3y ago

This has nothing to do with ChatGPT and everything to do with Amazon tolerating counterfeits and plagiarism. Also, how is this a replica if it was released before the original book? Is it just title squatting or has someone stolen his draft and regurgitated it through an LLM?

gumballindie 3y ago
Openai is selling a tool for plagiarism which itself is built upon unlicensed content. It has everything to do with openai.
- senko 3y ago
  Calling a LLM "a tool for plagiarism" takes some real mental gymnastics. You could similarly argue IKEA is selling lethal weapons because you can kill someone with a knife. The exact way copyright laws will apply (or not) to AI is still ambigous, until a high profile case gets before the Supreme Court or ECJ. You can certainly argue one way or another - my view is that AI learning from your blog post is similar to me learning from your blog post. That's not the problem. If I then plagiarise it (or copy wholesale), that is the problem.
  - ResearchCode 3y ago
    It seems like a tool for plagiarism. You could do the same thing before LLM grew in popularity by using Google Translate back and forth from English.
    - gmerc 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    If ikea would be selling machetes disguised as kitchen knifes, then yeah they would be called out and their product banned. You learning from my blog is not the same as a piece of software copying my work. Ai does not “learn” as humans do regardless of how well it mimics our behaviour. My laptop outputs audio, it doesnt sing.
    - moron4hire 3y ago
      Well an LLM certainly doesn't store the training data in a compressed format, because otherwise it'd be sci-fi levels of compression. So what are you suggesting it is doing?
      - chaxor 3y ago
        I wouldn't be so sure that there isn't "any" form of compression going on - that just seems silly. It seems that at some level it is *fantastic* lossy semantic compression. This is one of the more fascinating aspects of LLMs from a computer science perspective - almost all of human knowledge and experience in text from (several petabytes of data in a database) can be 'cleverly semantically compressed' to fit into a database of just a few hundred GB (NN params). That's some astounding lossy compression algorithm, unfortunately with a less than efficient decoder (temp=0). However, it isn't always 'plagiarism' either. 'Memorization' vs 'Plagiarism' vs 'understanding' is actually very tricky in LLMs, because having a good world model requires memorizing some facts, as well as some (potentially) "ontological" constructions. In addition, quoting a famous person is very useful for imparting some wisdom occasionally, which is also memorization, and can be seen as plagiarism if the author is left off. But sometimes this occurs (common sayings) and no one bats an eye. One good example of why explicit memorization is really needed is to provide exact references (list of authors, year, and article title) - so clearly making a NN not rewarded for memorizing is not ideal. Hence, *very occasionally*, you get some 'bad memorization'. But it is worth noting that the alignment achieved with these models for such an enormously complex task is quite good.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        An audio file doesnt store musical notes and a digital book does not store ink and paper. Using algorithms either of the two can however reproduce audio and visual content sufficiently similar, albeit not identical. An llm or generative model doesnt store audio files and digital books, compressed or not. But using algorithms it can reproduce audio and visual content sufficiently similar, but unlike my previous example it’s also made of bites. Just like an audio file and digital book are not copies of the physical product, an ai “data source” is not an identical or compressed copy of the original bites. That’s why it can be used to generate output identical to the original data even tho the data it uses is not a verbatim copy. It’s a new way of storing data, optimised for stochastic generation. It is a powerful tool but still relies on original content.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    OpenAI does plagiarize stuff wholesale though. I was looking up a fairly niche Python library about a month ago using ChatGPT and the code example it provided was too specific to be useful for what I was doing. So, I did a little googling and came across the blogpost it had sourced it from. It had the exact same code.
  - cornholio 3y ago
    Only problem is that LLMs don't "learn" from blog posts in any human sense of the word, they are incapable of symbolic reasoning. LLMs directly incorporate the "learning" material into their models, with superhuman memory capacity and recollection ability, and then remix that source content into their productions. The production might be original, depending on its specific circumstances, but the model and the service itself are without any legal doubt derivative works of the original. They have very little to do with the way humans learn - except maybe if you read a chapter from a book, memorize it, and then proceed to rewrite verbatim with the names of the characters exchanged, a use case of human learning which has long been recognized as, you guessed it, "plagiarism".
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Only problem is that LLMs don’t “learn” from blog posts […] LLMs directly incorporate the learning material into their models The "in-context learning" (regardless of how you feel about the use of that term) that they do from material incorporated into their prompts does not involve incorporating it into their model. > The production might be original, depending on its specific circumstances, but the model and the service itself are without any legal doubt derivative works of the original. Model code is a work, but not derivative of the training data. There’s considerable legal doubt that the models weights themselves are works of authorship at all, which is a prerequisite for being derivative works, so no matter if you are referring to model code or model weights, the statement that model is “without any legal doubt” a derivative work of the training data is false.
      - cornholio 3y ago
        You are splitting hairs, there is no doubt that transformers can incorporate and reproduce verbatim training data. Just ask ChatGPT to tell you the lyrics of a famous Madonna song. On that basis alone they are derivative works, regardless of how that data is represented internally.
    - senko 3y ago
      > LLMs directly incorporate the "learning" material into their models. No, that's not how it works. > read a chapter from a book, memorize it, and then proceed to rewrite verbatim with the names of the characters exchanged, That's how a bayesian markov chain would work, not transformers.
diebeforei485 3y ago
Yes, title-squatting a pre-order book. Pre-orders can have information about the table of contents, which makes it easier to churn out chatGPT content. Personally I think textbooks should not have pre orders.
karaterobot 3y ago
> This has nothing to do with ChatGPT and everything to do with Amazon tolerating counterfeits and plagiarism. How can you say that it's got nothing to do with ChatGPT and it is a counterfeit or plagiarized work? I'm not squaring the circle here. Do you believe he didn't produce the counterfeit or plagiarized work using ChatGPT after all? Perhaps you're saying ChatGPT is just a tool, which would be fair enough, but we frequently condemn toolmakers for enabling criminal behavior: gun manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies producing opioids, etc. I see in the news today that the city of Baltimore is even suing some car manufacturers for enabling auto theft by not having enough anti-theft precautions. In that light, wouldn't you say that ChatGPT at least makes it easier to produce counterfeit or plagiarized works, and that even if they are not legally culpable, they are in some sense enabling behavior that would not happen otherwise?
hammyhavoc 3y ago
Draft stealing is absolutely a thing that happens. Not infrequently, an author will shop a book around to different publishers, and then a publisher will like the title and pay someone less to rewrite it than buying it and get it to market before the original. There's been a few relatively high profile cases of this in the media over the years. Same shit happens to scriptwriters and music artists.

by senko 3y ago

gumballindie 3y ago

Openai is selling a tool for plagiarism which itself is built upon unlicensed content. It has everything to do with openai.

senko 3y ago
Calling a LLM "a tool for plagiarism" takes some real mental gymnastics. You could similarly argue IKEA is selling lethal weapons because you can kill someone with a knife. The exact way copyright laws will apply (or not) to AI is still ambigous, until a high profile case gets before the Supreme Court or ECJ. You can certainly argue one way or another - my view is that AI learning from your blog post is similar to me learning from your blog post. That's not the problem. If I then plagiarise it (or copy wholesale), that is the problem.
- ResearchCode 3y ago
  It seems like a tool for plagiarism. You could do the same thing before LLM grew in popularity by using Google Translate back and forth from English.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    [flagged]
- gumballindie 3y ago
  If ikea would be selling machetes disguised as kitchen knifes, then yeah they would be called out and their product banned. You learning from my blog is not the same as a piece of software copying my work. Ai does not “learn” as humans do regardless of how well it mimics our behaviour. My laptop outputs audio, it doesnt sing.
  - moron4hire 3y ago
    Well an LLM certainly doesn't store the training data in a compressed format, because otherwise it'd be sci-fi levels of compression. So what are you suggesting it is doing?
    - chaxor 3y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure that there isn't "any" form of compression going on - that just seems silly. It seems that at some level it is *fantastic* lossy semantic compression. This is one of the more fascinating aspects of LLMs from a computer science perspective - almost all of human knowledge and experience in text from (several petabytes of data in a database) can be 'cleverly semantically compressed' to fit into a database of just a few hundred GB (NN params). That's some astounding lossy compression algorithm, unfortunately with a less than efficient decoder (temp=0). However, it isn't always 'plagiarism' either. 'Memorization' vs 'Plagiarism' vs 'understanding' is actually very tricky in LLMs, because having a good world model requires memorizing some facts, as well as some (potentially) "ontological" constructions. In addition, quoting a famous person is very useful for imparting some wisdom occasionally, which is also memorization, and can be seen as plagiarism if the author is left off. But sometimes this occurs (common sayings) and no one bats an eye. One good example of why explicit memorization is really needed is to provide exact references (list of authors, year, and article title) - so clearly making a NN not rewarded for memorizing is not ideal. Hence, *very occasionally*, you get some 'bad memorization'. But it is worth noting that the alignment achieved with these models for such an enormously complex task is quite good.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      An audio file doesnt store musical notes and a digital book does not store ink and paper. Using algorithms either of the two can however reproduce audio and visual content sufficiently similar, albeit not identical. An llm or generative model doesnt store audio files and digital books, compressed or not. But using algorithms it can reproduce audio and visual content sufficiently similar, but unlike my previous example it’s also made of bites. Just like an audio file and digital book are not copies of the physical product, an ai “data source” is not an identical or compressed copy of the original bites. That’s why it can be used to generate output identical to the original data even tho the data it uses is not a verbatim copy. It’s a new way of storing data, optimised for stochastic generation. It is a powerful tool but still relies on original content.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  OpenAI does plagiarize stuff wholesale though. I was looking up a fairly niche Python library about a month ago using ChatGPT and the code example it provided was too specific to be useful for what I was doing. So, I did a little googling and came across the blogpost it had sourced it from. It had the exact same code.
- cornholio 3y ago
  Only problem is that LLMs don't "learn" from blog posts in any human sense of the word, they are incapable of symbolic reasoning. LLMs directly incorporate the "learning" material into their models, with superhuman memory capacity and recollection ability, and then remix that source content into their productions. The production might be original, depending on its specific circumstances, but the model and the service itself are without any legal doubt derivative works of the original. They have very little to do with the way humans learn - except maybe if you read a chapter from a book, memorize it, and then proceed to rewrite verbatim with the names of the characters exchanged, a use case of human learning which has long been recognized as, you guessed it, "plagiarism".
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Only problem is that LLMs don’t “learn” from blog posts […] LLMs directly incorporate the learning material into their models The "in-context learning" (regardless of how you feel about the use of that term) that they do from material incorporated into their prompts does not involve incorporating it into their model. > The production might be original, depending on its specific circumstances, but the model and the service itself are without any legal doubt derivative works of the original. Model code is a work, but not derivative of the training data. There’s considerable legal doubt that the models weights themselves are works of authorship at all, which is a prerequisite for being derivative works, so no matter if you are referring to model code or model weights, the statement that model is “without any legal doubt” a derivative work of the training data is false.
    - cornholio 3y ago
      You are splitting hairs, there is no doubt that transformers can incorporate and reproduce verbatim training data. Just ask ChatGPT to tell you the lyrics of a famous Madonna song. On that basis alone they are derivative works, regardless of how that data is represented internally.
  - senko 3y ago
    > LLMs directly incorporate the "learning" material into their models. No, that's not how it works. > read a chapter from a book, memorize it, and then proceed to rewrite verbatim with the names of the characters exchanged, That's how a bayesian markov chain would work, not transformers.

diebeforei485 3y ago

Yes, title-squatting a pre-order book. Pre-orders can have information about the table of contents, which makes it easier to churn out chatGPT content. Personally I think textbooks should not have pre orders.

karaterobot 3y ago

> This has nothing to do with ChatGPT and everything to do with Amazon tolerating counterfeits and plagiarism. How can you say that it's got nothing to do with ChatGPT and it is a counterfeit or plagiarized work? I'm not squaring the circle here. Do you believe he didn't produce the counterfeit or plagiarized work using ChatGPT after all? Perhaps you're saying ChatGPT is just a tool, which would be fair enough, but we frequently condemn toolmakers for enabling criminal behavior: gun manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies producing opioids, etc. I see in the news today that the city of Baltimore is even suing some car manufacturers for enabling auto theft by not having enough anti-theft precautions. In that light, wouldn't you say that ChatGPT at least makes it easier to produce counterfeit or plagiarized works, and that even if they are not legally culpable, they are in some sense enabling behavior that would not happen otherwise?

hammyhavoc 3y ago

Draft stealing is absolutely a thing that happens. Not infrequently, an author will shop a book around to different publishers, and then a publisher will like the title and pay someone less to rewrite it than buying it and get it to market before the original. There's been a few relatively high profile cases of this in the media over the years. Same shit happens to scriptwriters and music artists.