3 ms·
Really, really bad look for Eleuther if this is true. I did not expect them do something like this and not even see the issue with it.
by schleck8 3y ago
Really, really bad look for Eleuther if this is true. I did not expect them do something like this and not even see the issue with it.
- Ancalagon 3y agoMove fast and break the law.
- andybak 3y agoIt's far from certain at this stage whether this does break the law.
- haswell 3y agoWhile this may be true, the reverse is also true, and even if it’s legal, there are other ways to frame this that are worth considering, e.g. It could technically be legal, but not in accordance with the spirit of the law. Updates to laws are required. The fact that the model is legal is an additional problem on top of the gap in the law. I think my main point here is that “legal” does not imply moral or acceptable to society, and our understanding of the technical legal status is not a prerequisite for exploring those factors, which may be the thing that changes the legal status in response to the major shift in landscape.
- Spivak 3y agoRight but if you have a plausible case you weren't breaking the law and it was a legal unknown the most that will happen is "we've decided this is officially illegal, stop doing it." You risk nothing by assuming things are legal until explicitly illegal.
- haswell 3y agoIf you limit the framing of the conversation to that of an amoral corporate entity, sure. But I don’t think there was ever a question that companies can legally do things that are potentially (or unequivocally) distasteful if not outright unethical/immoral. More interesting is the broader conversation which involves society’s response to a major shift in the information economy, new questions about what role these tools should play, and how laws should evolve accordingly. The factors surrounding the emergence/unfolding of AI tooling can’t be stripped down to just the corporate interests involved.
- innagadadavida 3y agoCopyright laws should be amended to allow this scenario. If I read a book and write about it in a blog, it is considered review. Why shouldn’t we allow companies to do the same to train their models? Overall it will benefit society more than it hurts some rich authors.
- TX81Z 3y ago“Rich authors”. Citation needed.
- innagadadavida 3y agoI meant the authors that are suing - if you have the money to sue, you can be considered rich? no?
- TX81Z 3y agoGoing to go with “no, you don’t need to be rich to sue”. Likewise to be included in a class action you don’t have to pay anything, or even participate any way, you just get a cut of the settlement.
- doctoboggan 3y agoI think the difference is you presumably obtained that book legally before writing the review. In this case the book was pirated (the definitely illegal part), and then used for training (the possibly illegal part, but I suspect this would be deemed fair use). IMO google and their massive google books DB would have a better leg to stand on here if they trained on that dataset as they owned physical copies of all the books.
- Spivak 3y agoI don't think it matters. Your review isn't copyright infringement because you pirated the movie.
- haswell 3y ago
- TX81Z 3y agoIt worked for Uber!
- amelius 3y agoIt certainly worked for their founders.
- CamperBob2 3y agoAnd their customers. Show of hands: who wants to go back to taxis?
- Der_Einzige 3y agoMost large datasets are full of copyrighted content. They aren’t unique.