33 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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.