4 ms·

> I can use smthg like GPT-4 to label data and then use that as a train set for my own LLM, right? Yes, almost all improved LLama models are tuned exactly tha

> I can use smthg like GPT-4 to label data and then use that as a train set for my own LLM, right? Yes, almost all improved LLama models are tuned exactly that way (trained on examples of questions and answers from say GPT 4). If OpenAI stole copyrighted works to train their models it is morally fair game to do the same to them regardless of their TOS. It's not like they can prove it anyway. Plus there's the other point where they also say that everything generated by their models is public domain, so which one is it eh?

sirsinsalot 3y ago
This ... but we all know business is corrupt. The current attempts to spur on regulation by OpenAI is moat building
- ehnto 3y ago
  We were complacent while it happened because OpenAI wasn't a business, it wasn't seen as unethical to use community work to contribute to community research. Now they're entrenched and pulled the rug out from the community, whilst also trying to shut the door on anyone else. Just a really disappointing series of events, the money and profit were never the big issue.
jrm4 3y ago
I'm a lawyer so one should never break the law. Nonethless, I can observe and predict that non-consensual "open sourcing" of these models would likely end up probably the best and safest way to do all of this stuff.
Fgehono 3y ago
Because by training it they created something new. I don't mind just making a point. But I don't think they mind. I don't believe that this type of model training is able to be bleeding edge which should guarantee that openai has enough motivation to continue the development and having a healthy competition
sp332 3y ago
It's against the terms of service to do the generation, but the generated text is not copyrighted. Those are different things.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  GPT-4 is trained on a large number of web pages, some of which will have had their own terms of service.
  - svaha1728 3y ago
    Not only web sites, full books from scribd and other sources.
  - asah 3y ago
    see LinkedIn vs HiQ (which HiQ won) covering fair use of logged-out web pages.
    - pvarangot 3y ago
      I have to log in to OpenAI to generate conversations but the conversations I can post on my own logged-out blog. It's the same thing OpenAI would probably say if they got sued because GPT spits copyrighted content it found on a logged-out webpage. They can't reasonably expect people to not use them for training.
  - ehnto 3y ago
    Is it legal for one of their computer systems to access mine without my consent, even if publicly routable via the internet? If I found an open port on a government computer it is still illegal for me to access that isn't it? Is the difference that this is port 80/443 and happens to serve HTTP requests something that has been described in law or court?
- winddude 3y ago
  show me the ToS where it says that, and I still won't care, because it would absolute be legal under the same principle openAI is using for the training data as a transformative work. FYI: here are the relevant parts from the TOS: (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI; (iv) except as permitted through the API sounds like you are allowed to as long as it's from the api, as this "imaginary" restriction isn't in https://openai.com/policies/api-data-usage-policies https://openai.com/policies/api-data-usage-policies, or https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Use of copyrighted material in such a way that it’s aggregated into statistical properties is almost certainly fair use. Use of the model to produce reproductions of copyrighted material then consuming or distributing it is almost certainly violating the copyright. But it was the facsimile of the material that’s the violation, not the abstract use of it to generate an aggregate model.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  You understand these things have a very very wide interpretation scope here that has yet to be tested in court. I wouldn’t make these statements so confidently as courts tend to reinterpret the law significantly for the balance of societal factors when serious technology changes occur.
  - itake 3y ago
    AI generated work is not copyright-able. I guess the courts later could disagree though. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
    - belter 3y ago
      If the AI generates a new Eric Clapton album, with the same similar voice and guitar playing style?
      - itake 3y ago
        your example doesn't have to be AI generated. Human cover-bands play Song X in the style of Y all the time.
    - anticensor 3y ago
      They are in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-copyright-and-patents/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-copyright-and-patents https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intel...

sirsinsalot 3y ago

This ... but we all know business is corrupt. The current attempts to spur on regulation by OpenAI is moat building

ehnto 3y ago
We were complacent while it happened because OpenAI wasn't a business, it wasn't seen as unethical to use community work to contribute to community research. Now they're entrenched and pulled the rug out from the community, whilst also trying to shut the door on anyone else. Just a really disappointing series of events, the money and profit were never the big issue.

jrm4 3y ago

I'm a lawyer so one should never break the law. Nonethless, I can observe and predict that non-consensual "open sourcing" of these models would likely end up probably the best and safest way to do all of this stuff.

Fgehono 3y ago

Because by training it they created something new. I don't mind just making a point. But I don't think they mind. I don't believe that this type of model training is able to be bleeding edge which should guarantee that openai has enough motivation to continue the development and having a healthy competition

sp332 3y ago

It's against the terms of service to do the generation, but the generated text is not copyrighted. Those are different things.

cameldrv 3y ago
GPT-4 is trained on a large number of web pages, some of which will have had their own terms of service.
- svaha1728 3y ago
  Not only web sites, full books from scribd and other sources.
- asah 3y ago
  see LinkedIn vs HiQ (which HiQ won) covering fair use of logged-out web pages.
  - pvarangot 3y ago
    I have to log in to OpenAI to generate conversations but the conversations I can post on my own logged-out blog. It's the same thing OpenAI would probably say if they got sued because GPT spits copyrighted content it found on a logged-out webpage. They can't reasonably expect people to not use them for training.
- ehnto 3y ago
  Is it legal for one of their computer systems to access mine without my consent, even if publicly routable via the internet? If I found an open port on a government computer it is still illegal for me to access that isn't it? Is the difference that this is port 80/443 and happens to serve HTTP requests something that has been described in law or court?
winddude 3y ago
show me the ToS where it says that, and I still won't care, because it would absolute be legal under the same principle openAI is using for the training data as a transformative work. FYI: here are the relevant parts from the TOS: (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI; (iv) except as permitted through the API sounds like you are allowed to as long as it's from the api, as this "imaginary" restriction isn't in https://openai.com/policies/api-data-usage-policies https://openai.com/policies/api-data-usage-policies, or https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Use of copyrighted material in such a way that it’s aggregated into statistical properties is almost certainly fair use. Use of the model to produce reproductions of copyrighted material then consuming or distributing it is almost certainly violating the copyright. But it was the facsimile of the material that’s the violation, not the abstract use of it to generate an aggregate model.

tsunamifury 3y ago
You understand these things have a very very wide interpretation scope here that has yet to be tested in court. I wouldn’t make these statements so confidently as courts tend to reinterpret the law significantly for the balance of societal factors when serious technology changes occur.
- itake 3y ago
  AI generated work is not copyright-able. I guess the courts later could disagree though. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
  - belter 3y ago
    If the AI generates a new Eric Clapton album, with the same similar voice and guitar playing style?
    - itake 3y ago
      your example doesn't have to be AI generated. Human cover-bands play Song X in the style of Y all the time.
  - anticensor 3y ago
    They are in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-copyright-and-patents/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-copyright-and-patents https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intel...