4 ms·

It seems like a weak argument, in that it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it, from book reviews to sales listings to interviews.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Unless OpenAI can prove that the outputs are derived from legally vs illegally-obtained outputs, not sure that’s going to matter. And as far as I understand about their models, that’s effectively impossible.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  Isn’t the burden of proof on the other side?
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Not when OpenAI publicly declared they trained on pirated works. I can’t imagine “we can’t tell if this is the result of the illegal thing we did or not” is going to stand up very well, nor does it bode well for any refutation of the plaintiff’s depiction of their intent. Part of fair use consideration is commercial impact and when you steal a bunch of books to train your AI model, it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm.
    - pama 3y ago
      Please read more carefully. OpenAI never “declared they trained on pirated works.”
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        +1
      - yencabulator 3y ago
        However, the root of this thread quotes Meta admitting exactly that.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - kevinventullo 3y ago
      … it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm. So this is another thing I don’t understand. Is the claim that fewer people will buy Silverman’s book because ChatGPT is able to provide a summary? If so, call me skeptical.
      - flangola7 3y ago
        That's not a claim Silverman has to make. "You copied my book without license to do so" is sufficient.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Did they?
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Do you think scraping huge swathes of the internet contains pirated works or not?
        refulgentis 3y ago
        Does that mean "no"? I guess so. Where does it say they scraped huge swathes of the internet and didn't look at the results?
pessimizer 3y ago
> it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it Is this based on inside information, or just the law of averages? Doesn't the fact that they openly admitted to having been trained on pirated books affect your priors?
- refulgentis 3y ago
  They didn't, more conjecture
  - Jolter 3y ago
    It seems to me that they are indeed admitting to using the pile/books3 dataset, which seems to contain Silverman’s book, at least. See post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 for a summary.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

Unless OpenAI can prove that the outputs are derived from legally vs illegally-obtained outputs, not sure that’s going to matter. And as far as I understand about their models, that’s effectively impossible.

kevinventullo 3y ago
Isn’t the burden of proof on the other side?
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Not when OpenAI publicly declared they trained on pirated works. I can’t imagine “we can’t tell if this is the result of the illegal thing we did or not” is going to stand up very well, nor does it bode well for any refutation of the plaintiff’s depiction of their intent. Part of fair use consideration is commercial impact and when you steal a bunch of books to train your AI model, it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm.
  - pama 3y ago
    Please read more carefully. OpenAI never “declared they trained on pirated works.”
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      +1
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      However, the root of this thread quotes Meta admitting exactly that.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - kevinventullo 3y ago
    … it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm. So this is another thing I don’t understand. Is the claim that fewer people will buy Silverman’s book because ChatGPT is able to provide a summary? If so, call me skeptical.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      That's not a claim Silverman has to make. "You copied my book without license to do so" is sufficient.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Did they?
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Do you think scraping huge swathes of the internet contains pirated works or not?
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        Does that mean "no"? I guess so. Where does it say they scraped huge swathes of the internet and didn't look at the results?

pessimizer 3y ago

> it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it Is this based on inside information, or just the law of averages? Doesn't the fact that they openly admitted to having been trained on pirated books affect your priors?

refulgentis 3y ago
They didn't, more conjecture
- Jolter 3y ago
  It seems to me that they are indeed admitting to using the pile/books3 dataset, which seems to contain Silverman’s book, at least. See post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 for a summary.