4 ms·
> There's a distinction between "learning from" and "copying". Neural nets can memorize their training data. Generally that isn't what you want, and you striv
by lamontcg 3y ago
> There's a distinction between "learning from" and "copying".
Neural nets can memorize their training data. Generally that isn't what you want, and you strive to eliminate it. However, it could instead be encouraged to happen if someone wanted to exploit this law in order to abuse copyrights.
- GaggiX 3y agoThe law applies to the training of a neural network; you're not depriving the copyright holder of his intellectual property; if you use a copy of his work, he still owns the copyright independently if you copy it by right-clicking > copying or by overfitting a generative model.
- adam_arthur 3y agoHumans can memorize their training data too... aka see something and then produce a copy (code, drawing, music etc). The principles underlying how LLMs and humans learn isn't really that different... just different levels of loss/fuzziness.
- leni536 3y agoAnd when humans do that they may also infringe on copyright.
- adam_arthur 3y agoYet it’s not illegal to look at the McDonald’s logo, is it?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sgk284 3y agoHumans learn on copyrighted works as a matter of standard training. And certainly humans can memorize those works and replicate them – and we rely on the legal system to ensure that they don't monetize them. The same will apply to neural nets. They can learn from others, but must make sufficiently distinct new works of art from what they've learned.
- DennisP 3y agoYes, and as GP suggested, going on to distribute copies would be copyright infringement. That doesn't imply that it's an infringement to train the neural net.