4 ms·

Are you trolling? Look at the ISBN/info page of literally any book. It will say something like 'all rights reserved' and that you can't reproduce any part with

by everly 3y ago

Are you trolling? Look at the ISBN/info page of literally any book. It will say something like 'all rights reserved' and that you can't reproduce any part without permission, except for limited cases. Please go get a book off of your shelf and look, I'm begging you. Edit - Example from Infinite Jest: https://burnsiderarebooks.cdn.bibliopolis.com/pictures/140943064_6.jpg?auto=webp&v=1650224124 https://burnsiderarebooks.cdn.bibliopolis.com/pictures/14094...

imgabe 3y ago
Using the knowledge from the book !== reproducing any part of the book. If I read a math book that shows me how to do an integral, then use that knowledge to do integrals, I'm not infringing the copyright of the book, ffs. If you read in a book that the main export of Germany is Bavarian creme doughnuts, and you use that knowledge in a job interview (i.e. making money) to land a job as a Bavarian creme doughnut importer, that is not copyright infringement. People learn things and put that knowledge to use, often for profit. What kind of insane interpretation of copyright law are you working with? A copyright notice is not an agreement. It's not a contract, it does not offer any consideration to the other party. There is no meeting of the minds. That is not at all how any of that works.
- everly 3y ago
  I am not saying that using knowledge is a copyright violation. Sorry but I think we're talking past each other. Inputting entire books verbatim into a model is not the same as a human learning a fact and using it later.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    The book does not exist verbatim within the model. You cannot open the model and find the full text of some copyrighted work anywhere. The model just trains a set of weights for a neural network, then probabilistically generates text in response to prompts. And yeah, humans "input entire books verbatim" (aka, reading) and then regurgitate that knowledge later when they determine it is likely to be an appropriate response to a question or comment from someone else. It's really not that different. It doesn't even have to be a fact. How many responses on the Internet are just quotes from movies or TV shows?
    - data-ottawa 3y ago
      The point the above poster is making is that copying a book into a training set is the copyright violation, the model using the trained weights to make an inference is not.
ClassyJacket 3y ago
And where does it say "you can't learn anything from this book at all". We're not talking about copying verbatim, that's the whole point.
- everly 3y ago
  But we are talking about copying verbatim. The entire text didn't just land in the training corpus by magic. A human copied the entire text of many books - verbatim - into the training corpus. Under copyright law, the human was free to read the whole thing. But not copy the whole thing into an AI model with the intent to profit.
BeetleB 3y ago
A lot of the verbiage is unenforceable. Yes, copyright applies. But I used to own books that explicitly said it cannot be resold.

by everly 3y ago

imgabe 3y ago

Using the knowledge from the book !== reproducing any part of the book. If I read a math book that shows me how to do an integral, then use that knowledge to do integrals, I'm not infringing the copyright of the book, ffs. If you read in a book that the main export of Germany is Bavarian creme doughnuts, and you use that knowledge in a job interview (i.e. making money) to land a job as a Bavarian creme doughnut importer, that is not copyright infringement. People learn things and put that knowledge to use, often for profit. What kind of insane interpretation of copyright law are you working with? A copyright notice is not an agreement. It's not a contract, it does not offer any consideration to the other party. There is no meeting of the minds. That is not at all how any of that works.

everly 3y ago
I am not saying that using knowledge is a copyright violation. Sorry but I think we're talking past each other. Inputting entire books verbatim into a model is not the same as a human learning a fact and using it later.
- imgabe 3y ago
  The book does not exist verbatim within the model. You cannot open the model and find the full text of some copyrighted work anywhere. The model just trains a set of weights for a neural network, then probabilistically generates text in response to prompts. And yeah, humans "input entire books verbatim" (aka, reading) and then regurgitate that knowledge later when they determine it is likely to be an appropriate response to a question or comment from someone else. It's really not that different. It doesn't even have to be a fact. How many responses on the Internet are just quotes from movies or TV shows?
  - data-ottawa 3y ago
    The point the above poster is making is that copying a book into a training set is the copyright violation, the model using the trained weights to make an inference is not.

ClassyJacket 3y ago

And where does it say "you can't learn anything from this book at all". We're not talking about copying verbatim, that's the whole point.

everly 3y ago
But we are talking about copying verbatim. The entire text didn't just land in the training corpus by magic. A human copied the entire text of many books - verbatim - into the training corpus. Under copyright law, the human was free to read the whole thing. But not copy the whole thing into an AI model with the intent to profit.

BeetleB 3y ago

A lot of the verbiage is unenforceable. Yes, copyright applies. But I used to own books that explicitly said it cannot be resold.