4 ms·

But OpenAI is neither copying nor deriving a work. Style (which can be described as a probability model) is not copyrightable. You're halfway there with #2. Th

But OpenAI is neither copying nor deriving a work. Style (which can be described as a probability model) is not copyrightable. You're halfway there with #2. The output is not copyrightable, but unless you can actually point to a sequence of words from the original it can't be infringing.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> But OpenAI is neither copying nor deriving a work. They absolutely are copying in the course of training the model, and they are doing something that often looks a lot like copying when producing output with the model. > Style (which can be described as a probability model) is not copyrightable. Style is not all that can be described in an LLM's "probability model", otherwise LLM models would never be able to reproduce content from the training set, which they do. > The output is not copyrightable, but unless you can actually point to a sequence of words from the original it can’t be infringing. While verbatim copying (“a sequence of words from the original”) is infringing, mechanical copying with a mechanical substitution filter (even a wickedly complex one) is also copying, and violates copyright. And ChatGPT is quite capable of producing verbatim text from its training set.
- bandrami 3y ago
  > They absolutely are copying in the course of training the model Only in the sense that a Cisco router is copying in the course of sending me the article, which we've all agreed doesn't count as infringement. The bigger problem is that the plaintiff has to show it is more likely than not that that sequence of words came from their text and not some other source, which is going to be obscenely difficult. > And ChatGPT is quite capable of producing verbatim text from its training set. Granted, and then the copyright holder could sue for infringement at that point. Exactly whom he should sue is a more difficult question. Look, I get it: you want copyright to allow authors to say "you can't do that with my work"; I'm sympathetic, but it just doesn't give authors that power.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Only in the sense that a Cisco router is copying in the course of sending me the article, which we've all agreed doesn't count as infringement. But it does count as infringement, if its not explicltly or implicitly licensed (because it is necessary to a use that is licensed or necessary to a use that does not itself require a license but is the normal use for for which a licensed copy, which you have, is sold and used) and it is not itself Fair Use (usually, because it is necessary in the course of a use which is itself Fair Use.) > The bigger problem is that the plaintiff has to show it is more likely than not that that sequence of words came from their text and not some other source, which is going to be obscenely difficult. The plaintiff has to (1) show facts from which a judge concludes that a reasonable jury might conclude that, and (2) get the jury to conclude that. This can be difficult, and it might not be trivial in this case, but in practice the combination of opportunity and non-trivial similarity tends to put more weight on the defense to show a convincing alternative explanation. Outside of conclusions that a judge views as conpletely unreasonable based on the facts, the civil burden of proof boils down to what a jury feels is more likely, not some. > Granted, and then the copyright holder could sue for infringement at that point. Exactly whom he should sue is a more difficult question. Well, who else might be liable depends on the specific circumstances, but with OpenAI controlling the whole course between the first copy of the copyrighted work and the infringing end product, and doing it all for commercial gain, that OpenAI wpuld be on the hook, civilly and potentially criminally for any infringement, is clear. > Look, I get it: you want copyright to allow authors to say "you can't do that with my work"; I'm sympathetic, but it just doesn't give authors that power. I want copyright to be both more limited in its exclusive rights and either shorter or costlier to the copyright holder than it is. But what I want is not what the law is.
    - bandrami 3y ago
      > OpenAI wpuld be on the hook, civilly and potentially criminally for any infringement I don't think you've thought about this hard enough

dragonwriter 3y ago

> But OpenAI is neither copying nor deriving a work. They absolutely are copying in the course of training the model, and they are doing something that often looks a lot like copying when producing output with the model. > Style (which can be described as a probability model) is not copyrightable. Style is not all that can be described in an LLM's "probability model", otherwise LLM models would never be able to reproduce content from the training set, which they do. > The output is not copyrightable, but unless you can actually point to a sequence of words from the original it can’t be infringing. While verbatim copying (“a sequence of words from the original”) is infringing, mechanical copying with a mechanical substitution filter (even a wickedly complex one) is also copying, and violates copyright. And ChatGPT is quite capable of producing verbatim text from its training set.

bandrami 3y ago
> They absolutely are copying in the course of training the model Only in the sense that a Cisco router is copying in the course of sending me the article, which we've all agreed doesn't count as infringement. The bigger problem is that the plaintiff has to show it is more likely than not that that sequence of words came from their text and not some other source, which is going to be obscenely difficult. > And ChatGPT is quite capable of producing verbatim text from its training set. Granted, and then the copyright holder could sue for infringement at that point. Exactly whom he should sue is a more difficult question. Look, I get it: you want copyright to allow authors to say "you can't do that with my work"; I'm sympathetic, but it just doesn't give authors that power.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Only in the sense that a Cisco router is copying in the course of sending me the article, which we've all agreed doesn't count as infringement. But it does count as infringement, if its not explicltly or implicitly licensed (because it is necessary to a use that is licensed or necessary to a use that does not itself require a license but is the normal use for for which a licensed copy, which you have, is sold and used) and it is not itself Fair Use (usually, because it is necessary in the course of a use which is itself Fair Use.) > The bigger problem is that the plaintiff has to show it is more likely than not that that sequence of words came from their text and not some other source, which is going to be obscenely difficult. The plaintiff has to (1) show facts from which a judge concludes that a reasonable jury might conclude that, and (2) get the jury to conclude that. This can be difficult, and it might not be trivial in this case, but in practice the combination of opportunity and non-trivial similarity tends to put more weight on the defense to show a convincing alternative explanation. Outside of conclusions that a judge views as conpletely unreasonable based on the facts, the civil burden of proof boils down to what a jury feels is more likely, not some. > Granted, and then the copyright holder could sue for infringement at that point. Exactly whom he should sue is a more difficult question. Well, who else might be liable depends on the specific circumstances, but with OpenAI controlling the whole course between the first copy of the copyrighted work and the infringing end product, and doing it all for commercial gain, that OpenAI wpuld be on the hook, civilly and potentially criminally for any infringement, is clear. > Look, I get it: you want copyright to allow authors to say "you can't do that with my work"; I'm sympathetic, but it just doesn't give authors that power. I want copyright to be both more limited in its exclusive rights and either shorter or costlier to the copyright holder than it is. But what I want is not what the law is.
  - bandrami 3y ago
    > OpenAI wpuld be on the hook, civilly and potentially criminally for any infringement I don't think you've thought about this hard enough