4 ms·

> Consider a poet who publishes poetry in some unique meter, or has some other unique stylistic structure for which they are well known... should they be allowe

> Consider a poet who publishes poetry in some unique meter, or has some other unique stylistic structure for which they are well known... should they be allowed to sell copies of their poems that can be used for reading only, but prevents usage of those stylistic devices by other authors? I don't think this is a fair analogy. Unfortunately, analogy breaks down because the technology is unprecedented. So, to answer directly, no the poet cannot copyright the unique meter, but, no, machine learning is not that. If you need an analogy, think copy machine, not human learning. An LLM can only regurgitate that which it has seen before. Absent the poet, the other poets can still make other poetry, but the LLM literally cannot make poetry that it has not seen before. If it produces a poem with that unique meter then it definitely copied that poet, and was not "inspired by" the poetry. If you wrote poetry inspired by EE Cummings your process for doing that would be very different from an LLM's, which would programmatically use his material.

clucas 3y ago
What about the second part of my post, where the LLM has NOT been trained on the specific meter, but it does have some "concept" (maybe not the right word, but bear with me) of what meter is, so the human prompter can say "write a poem about subject S, with meter M" and get something in the style of that poet, without having been trained on it... sounds like you're OK with that scenario? Full disclosure: I think I probably disagree with you on some points you've made in this thread, but I'm not going for any gotchas right now, I am just trying to map the contours of what you think is OK and not OK. We're all sort of flying blind on this stuff, so getting a sense of what others are thinking is really important in my mind. Appreciate the engagement.
gaganyaan 3y ago
I think you're coming from a fundamental place of misunderstanding. LLMs don't just regurgitate what they've seen before. After you understand how they work, I think the rest will become clear to you.
- freejazz 3y ago
  This is argued by the people that say it's akin to human learning, but then turn around and say we don't know enough about human learning. it's an utterly fallacious argument
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    You seem to be arguing against something I didn't say
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

clucas 3y ago

What about the second part of my post, where the LLM has NOT been trained on the specific meter, but it does have some "concept" (maybe not the right word, but bear with me) of what meter is, so the human prompter can say "write a poem about subject S, with meter M" and get something in the style of that poet, without having been trained on it... sounds like you're OK with that scenario? Full disclosure: I think I probably disagree with you on some points you've made in this thread, but I'm not going for any gotchas right now, I am just trying to map the contours of what you think is OK and not OK. We're all sort of flying blind on this stuff, so getting a sense of what others are thinking is really important in my mind. Appreciate the engagement.

gaganyaan 3y ago

I think you're coming from a fundamental place of misunderstanding. LLMs don't just regurgitate what they've seen before. After you understand how they work, I think the rest will become clear to you.

freejazz 3y ago
This is argued by the people that say it's akin to human learning, but then turn around and say we don't know enough about human learning. it's an utterly fallacious argument
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  You seem to be arguing against something I didn't say

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]