3 ms·
> Weights probably aren't copyrightable in the US. ... is understood to require human authorship. Are you arguing here that because the weights come from an op
by radarsat1 3y ago
> Weights probably aren't copyrightable in the US. ... is understood to require human authorship.
Are you arguing here that because the weights come from an optimization program, they are not "human authored"? If so I find that to be a strange assertion. If I'm working every day on my model and training algorithm to ensure it produces the best weights possible to solve my problem, I would be very surprised for someone to tell me I have no ownership over those weights because they are generated from a program I wrote and data that I own.
- hnfong 3y agoIn addition to what you mentioned, I'd like to add that photos are copyrightable by the photographer, who merely tweaked some "hyper-parameters" (exposure, ISO, aperture, whatever) and decided when and where to press a button. If such "minimal" amounts of authorship is considered sufficient, I won't be as confident as GP to claim that training an LLM, which requires orders of magnitudes more hyperparameters, labor and capital investment, to be uncopyrightable due to lack of human authorship involved. It might end up uncopyrightable due to other reasons, but probably not this. Btw, the phone directories are quite different -- they're just compilation of raw factual public domain information. The LLM weights are anything but. In fact one of the leading theories as to why LLMs are not copyrightable is that they infringe upon the copyrights of the source training materials. (I also don't want to guess whether that argument holds)