6 ms·

If you get sued, the data you trained on could be subject to the discovery process.

by __loam 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
That's assuming you kept records of what you used, and that the person who trained the model is the same person distributing it, or that the former is even in your jurisdiction.
- __loam 3y ago
  We're good as long as we outsource our abuses I guess.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    It not obvious that this even should be illegal, but a decent factor in determining that is whether making it illegal would even do any good. Unenforceable laws are all cost and no benefit.
- Retric 3y ago
  The models themselves record the training data. ChatGPT is happy to spit out Albus Dumbledore when asked about a hypothetical magic school. If you don’t have the exact training dataset that’s not going to be an actual defense. The only protection is specific jurisdictions ruling this stuff is fair use, which is risky when you could be found liable in literally any country.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > ChatGPT is happy to spit out Albus Dumbledore when asked about a hypothetical magic school. How are you supposed to know if that's because it ingested the text of Harry Potter or a bunch of fan blogs talking about Harry Potter? > The only protection is specific jurisdictions ruling this stuff is fair use, which is risky when you could be found liable in literally any country. Saudi Arabia has quite strict blasphemy laws but people don't seem to be bothered much by it when hosting quite obvious violations of them on their servers in North America.
    - Retric 3y ago
      > or a bunch of fan blogs talking about Harry Potter? Doesn’t actually matter here because those fan blogs are also derivative works. I may have read “Call me Ishmael” in a blog, but the quote is from Moby Dick. ChatGPT can argue for a fair use exception, but combining lots of derivative works can be copyright infringement even if none of the things you directly copied where. IE: If you copy a lot of excerpts from a poem and recreate the poem that doesn’t mean you can now use the poem. Being able to say Harry Potter isn’t directly in their training data is at best useful to arguing something was unintentional copyright infringement rather than not actually being copyright infringement. > Blasphemy laws That’s a criminal not civil issue and there aren’t a huge number of treaties on the subject. If a US company is sued in Australia for copyright infringement they don’t get to move the case to the US.
      - __loam 3y ago
        Worth noting that Fair Use is more than just transformative work. Your work can still be found to be infringing even if it's transformative if it egregiously violates other tenets of fair use, like disrupting the market for the original.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Doesn’t actually matter here because those fan blogs are also derivative works. Not necessarily. To be a derivative work it has to contain copyrightable elements, not just a small number of words in the same order. > ChatGPT can argue for a fair use exception, but combining lots of derivative works can be copyright infringement even if none of the things you directly copied where. IE: If you copy a lot of excerpts from a poem and recreate the poem that doesn’t mean you can now use the poem. This is the argument for why the model itself isn't infringing, isn't it? All of the excerpts as presented in their original context isn't the same thing as all of the excerpts purposefully rearranged back into the original work. It's like on the one hand arguing that a dictionary is infringing because it contains all of the words in Harry Potter, and on the other hand claiming that you can reproduce the text of Harry Potter without liability because you reconstructed it by rearranging the words in a dictionary. One of these things is not like the other. > If a US company is sued in Australia for copyright infringement they don’t get to move the case to the US. If a US company has no operations in Australia, how does an Australian court have jurisdiction?
  - TrueDuality 3y ago
    That kind of information is present in fan fiction, Wikipedia, reviews. Plenty of other sources. You're also incredibly wrong on being able to assume a book is present in the dataset. It is up to the complainant to prove the case, you are not guilty because you didn't keep sufficient records.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Copyright is like a shit sandwich, just those two words alone prove it’s a derivative work. This is true even if you copied from a copy. Once something is demonstrated as a derivative work, proving your use is fair use is now on the person who created it. That’s normally fairly easy with a book, but harder with LLM’s if they easily spit out large chunks of a clearly copied work. Remember lawsuits aren’t beyond a reasonable doubt the standard is much lower.
      - diogenes4 3y ago
        Surely this opens a door where, because an agent is unlikely to reproduce work verbatim but rather in a more compressed or decompressed wording, humans are held to a different standard? Otherwise humans would remain an effective way to launder the output of the agent.
        Retric 3y ago
        Copyright still applies if you’re copying elements of the story, it’s just harder to detect and less obvious in court. The value of names to copyright holders is simply how distinct they are. John Smith isn’t particularly unusual but if you name a bounty hunter Boba Fett it’s hard to argue originality. Complete originality isn’t required as long as you’re safely inside a fair use exception, but overwhelming originality is required. So it’s generally safer for a character to talk about their favorite parts of Star Wars than have your stories plot be a group of rebels trying to destroy a planet killing doomsday weapon guarded by a sword wielding space wizards.
        diogenes4 3y ago

If you get sued, the data you trained on could be subject to the discovery process.

by __loam 3y ago

If you get sued, the data you trained on could be subject to the discovery process.

That's assuming you kept records of what you used, and that the person who trained the model is the same person distributing it, or that the former is even in your jurisdiction.

__loam 3y ago
We're good as long as we outsource our abuses I guess.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  It not obvious that this even should be illegal, but a decent factor in determining that is whether making it illegal would even do any good. Unenforceable laws are all cost and no benefit.
Retric 3y ago
The models themselves record the training data. ChatGPT is happy to spit out Albus Dumbledore when asked about a hypothetical magic school. If you don’t have the exact training dataset that’s not going to be an actual defense. The only protection is specific jurisdictions ruling this stuff is fair use, which is risky when you could be found liable in literally any country.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > ChatGPT is happy to spit out Albus Dumbledore when asked about a hypothetical magic school. How are you supposed to know if that's because it ingested the text of Harry Potter or a bunch of fan blogs talking about Harry Potter? > The only protection is specific jurisdictions ruling this stuff is fair use, which is risky when you could be found liable in literally any country. Saudi Arabia has quite strict blasphemy laws but people don't seem to be bothered much by it when hosting quite obvious violations of them on their servers in North America.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > or a bunch of fan blogs talking about Harry Potter? Doesn’t actually matter here because those fan blogs are also derivative works. I may have read “Call me Ishmael” in a blog, but the quote is from Moby Dick. ChatGPT can argue for a fair use exception, but combining lots of derivative works can be copyright infringement even if none of the things you directly copied where. IE: If you copy a lot of excerpts from a poem and recreate the poem that doesn’t mean you can now use the poem. Being able to say Harry Potter isn’t directly in their training data is at best useful to arguing something was unintentional copyright infringement rather than not actually being copyright infringement. > Blasphemy laws That’s a criminal not civil issue and there aren’t a huge number of treaties on the subject. If a US company is sued in Australia for copyright infringement they don’t get to move the case to the US.
    - __loam 3y ago
      Worth noting that Fair Use is more than just transformative work. Your work can still be found to be infringing even if it's transformative if it egregiously violates other tenets of fair use, like disrupting the market for the original.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Doesn’t actually matter here because those fan blogs are also derivative works. Not necessarily. To be a derivative work it has to contain copyrightable elements, not just a small number of words in the same order. > ChatGPT can argue for a fair use exception, but combining lots of derivative works can be copyright infringement even if none of the things you directly copied where. IE: If you copy a lot of excerpts from a poem and recreate the poem that doesn’t mean you can now use the poem. This is the argument for why the model itself isn't infringing, isn't it? All of the excerpts as presented in their original context isn't the same thing as all of the excerpts purposefully rearranged back into the original work. It's like on the one hand arguing that a dictionary is infringing because it contains all of the words in Harry Potter, and on the other hand claiming that you can reproduce the text of Harry Potter without liability because you reconstructed it by rearranging the words in a dictionary. One of these things is not like the other. > If a US company is sued in Australia for copyright infringement they don’t get to move the case to the US. If a US company has no operations in Australia, how does an Australian court have jurisdiction?
- TrueDuality 3y ago
  That kind of information is present in fan fiction, Wikipedia, reviews. Plenty of other sources. You're also incredibly wrong on being able to assume a book is present in the dataset. It is up to the complainant to prove the case, you are not guilty because you didn't keep sufficient records.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Copyright is like a shit sandwich, just those two words alone prove it’s a derivative work. This is true even if you copied from a copy. Once something is demonstrated as a derivative work, proving your use is fair use is now on the person who created it. That’s normally fairly easy with a book, but harder with LLM’s if they easily spit out large chunks of a clearly copied work. Remember lawsuits aren’t beyond a reasonable doubt the standard is much lower.
    - diogenes4 3y ago
      Surely this opens a door where, because an agent is unlikely to reproduce work verbatim but rather in a more compressed or decompressed wording, humans are held to a different standard? Otherwise humans would remain an effective way to launder the output of the agent.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Copyright still applies if you’re copying elements of the story, it’s just harder to detect and less obvious in court. The value of names to copyright holders is simply how distinct they are. John Smith isn’t particularly unusual but if you name a bounty hunter Boba Fett it’s hard to argue originality. Complete originality isn’t required as long as you’re safely inside a fair use exception, but overwhelming originality is required. So it’s generally safer for a character to talk about their favorite parts of Star Wars than have your stories plot be a group of rebels trying to destroy a planet killing doomsday weapon guarded by a sword wielding space wizards.
        diogenes4 3y ago