6 ms·
I mean we never seem to care about the downward pressures we put on others, so this seems a contrived place to do it now. My take on the matter is that facts a
by Pet_Ant 3y ago
I mean we never seem to care about the downward pressures we put on others, so this seems a contrived place to do it now.
My take on the matter is that facts aren't copyrightable. A LLM is basically recording facts.
I have a background in stylometry where you basically determine authorship by recording statistics on known pieces of writing to try to find the author of another piece of writing. So just extracting facts. You could easily now generate random sentences and filter ones that pass a certain threshold. LLMs are basically this on steroids. So it's just facts and data, not copyright infringement.
Otherwise, you'd have to argue that software reading the text contents of a book are copyright infringement.
- thfuran 3y ago>Otherwise, you'd have to argue that software reading the text contents of a book are copyright infringement. How so?
- horsawlarway 3y agoBecause that's all the ai model is doing. It's reading the books. How an entity (human or not) changes after reading those books is not in the purview of copyright. It has not shared them (copied). It has read them, learned from them, and changed itself in response.
- SirMaster 3y agoWhy is an AI model allowed to read a book without paying for access to it, but I as a human have to pay for it to read it?
- Tadpole9181 3y agoThat's not the argument being made, is it? If the AI is trained on pirated data, it's a completely different case than the underlying principle of AI meaning all generated content is copyright infringement.
- SirMaster 3y agoBut I thought they were being trained on pirated data... Seems like a problem to me.
- Tadpole9181 3y agoThey're being trained on copyrighted data that was publicly accessible. The lawsuits focus on whether or not this is copyright violation, not the legality of accessing the material (AFAICT).
- SirMaster 3y agoSo the world is just ignoring the legality of accessing the material in the way that they did? Man, I wish as a human I could use the defense of "but it was publicly accessible in a torrent" as a valid reason that I acquired and consumed some content.
- Tadpole9181 3y agoSorry, do you have some proof that they pirated content that the scrupulous copyright holders themselves don't? That's not the issue at hand and, AFAICT, nobody is accusing them of doing it. Nobody is ignoring it, that would be a crime if they did, but since there's no evidence of it... you're being upset at your own hypothetical.
- SirMaster 3y agoI'm really confused. I see articles all over that LLMs for example used books3, which the creator himself has admitted came from torrenting from bibliotik, and which contains at least some books that are not otherwise freely available. The issue that content creators have with LLMs is not getting proper attribution for their creations and source material that went into training these LLMs, and it seems pretty clear to me that some of the content that was used to train LLMs was not legally obtained and licensed to consume.
- deleted 3y ago
- hashtag-til 3y agoThe AI should, no doubt, pay to read the book! In technical terms, these companies are trying to avoid the need to consider content licensing, which is a major violation to content creators.
- Pet_Ant 3y agoYou aren't licensing it. You are reading it. A machine reading it is no different than a human. I mean it really shouldn't be. Should a visually impaired person using a screen reader have to "license" the book?
- SirMaster 3y agoBut not all the works that have been consumed by LLMs are available to read without a license to do so.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoThat particular transformation of the book does well on a fair use analysis. If the blind person were to use the screen reader to put the book on Spotify, it would almost certainly fail a fair use analysis.
- hashtag-til 3y agoPeople come up with the most bizarre corner cases to justify freeloading on other’s intellectual property. Content is obviously being relicensed as the models are not fully open. On top of that, it is also being exposed as pay-for-use subscription models without paying anything to original authors. How is that fair use?
- troupe 3y agoYou can check the book out at the library and read it. Someone has to buy it, but not necessarily you personally.
- SirMaster 3y agoYou can check out some books at libraries for free, sure. LLMs are trained on tons of books and papers that are not available to humans for free anywhere.
- troupe 3y agoCan you give an example of something that they are trained on that a human can't somehow read without buying?
- SirMaster 3y agoTextbooks for 1 example. You are telling me that all the books in books2 and books3 can be acquired and read by myself completely free of charge legally without piracy? If humans can get these books for free legally, why are so many people paying so much to buy them for their college courses? I thought it's well known that LLMs are being trained on pirated content.
- troupe 3y agoTextbooks aren't somehow banned from libraries. You'll find lots of textbooks in public libraries, school libraries, and other libraries where they can be read without paying for the book. Now if you are saying they obtained the book from illegal sources that is a valid argument. But the issue there is orthogonal feeding the contents of the books into an LLM. It is legal for me to view and photograph the Mona Lisa. If I break into he Louvre to view the Mona Lisa, the issue isn't that I viewed the artwork. The issue is that I broke into the museum.
- SirMaster 3y ago
- stale2002 3y agoThere is nothing illegal about reading a book that you haven't paid for. What's illegal is making and distributing copies of a book. But the reader isn't in trouble for reading a book they don't own.
- SirMaster 3y agoReally? So I am free to torrent all the books that I want, and there is no legal action that can ever be taken against me? If so that would be news to me.
- stale2002 3y agoIf you start distributing torrents and copies to other people? No of course not. Creating copies, and distributing them to other people is against the law. That has nothing to do with what I said though. What I said is that it is not illegal for a reader to read something that they havent paid for. Do you see how that is different from distributing copies of something to other people?
- SirMaster 3y agoThat's not what I am asking though... I am asking about reading content that is not available through any free means, and pirating it in order to read it instead of paying for it from the author.
- stale2002 3y ago> I am asking about reading content that is not available through any free means, and having to pirate it in order to read it. Reading it is legal. Distributing torrents is not though. That is the part of piracy that is illegal. The illegal part is when you create and distributing copies. Copyright law has nothing to do with reading stuff that you have not paid for. Instead, it is about the illegality of creating and distributing copies. That's why it's called "copyright" law. Because it is about copies. It is not "readright law". No, there is nothing illegal about reading something that you havent paid for.
- relativ575 3y agoI think it's safe to assume that AI has to pay for the book as well, sooner or later, as shown in the deals OpenAI has made with content publishers such as AP [0]. The question is how much they should pay. [0] - https://www.pymnts.com/digital-payments/2023/58percent-of-consumers-trust-the-added-security-of-payment-credentials-vaults/ https://www.pymnts.com/digital-payments/2023/58percent-of-co...
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoIn order to present a book to a ML algorithm you need to copy it, either using a camera, or using other means (eg as a file). In USA that copying might be Fair Use, it's almost certainly not allowed in UK law AIUI. Copying a webpage into a cache that allows presentation of the page to a user is only allowed because it is part of rendering the page to a user. Even if a computer only copies two words at a time from a source text, if it copies a substantial part overall then it still copied. Honestly, I don't think slurping data to train ML models is allowed by copyright (but, I do, probably think it should be, as long as any significant reproductions are then prosecuted as infringements [also we should reduce copyright terms to ~7 years!]). This is all my own opinion, unrelated to my employment.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago> In order to present a book to a ML algorithm you need to copy it, either using a camera, or using other means Almost all modern books are available as ebooks for the Kindle or otherwise. You aren't doing anything to the content itself that could be a violation.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoSo, you copy the Kindle book from a server to your local host to feed into your training algo (ie other means). Or you stream it piecewise into a buffer, still copying.
- thfuran 3y agoAs long as you only train the network and never use it for inference, I suppose that's a reasonable argument. But a person is restricted in action by copyright regardless of the writing implement they choose to use. Whether they use a pencil or an LLM, they cannot freely reproduce copyrighted works in whole or in part, excepting some narrow conditions.
- cmiles74 3y agoIMHO, an LLM is not "reading" a book in any way, certainly there is no parallel with how people read. It is encoding the book. That's how it can regurgitate chunks of that book later, including, in some contexts, by providing verbatim spans of text from the book.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoHow would reproduction of fictional works or the creation of derivative works based on fictional training inputs constitute “a recording of facts”?
- falcor84 3y agoI think you're conflating two issues. As I understand it, this justification is about whether the training itself is fair-use. The discussion on whether the outputs are derivative or transformative is separate. Analogously, if I publish a copy of copyrighted poems from memory that would be infringement, but there's nothing infringing about me just reading and memorizing them.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoLLMs - as in the models, the weights - do not contain "reproduction of fictional works or the creation of derivative works based on fictional training inputs" in any meaningful sense. "Reproduction of fictional works" is what is present in the training data. "Creation of derivative works based on fictional training inputs" is what you might be doing as a user of a LLM. The models themselves are, like GP said, recordings of statistical properties of text, just taken up to 11.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> LLMs - as in the models, the weights - do not contain "reproduction of fictional works or the creation of derivative works based on fictional training inputs" in any meaningful sense. Since portions of such works can be recovered in inference, they contain at least a lossily-compressed copy of the collection of works used in training. Reproduction isn’t pure coincidence.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoIndeed, but learning is effectively[0] a form of lossy compression too. DNN weights are somewhere between zipping up a truckload of JPEGs and deriving facts from first principles. Where exactly are they on this spectrum and how it affects copyright, it's not obvious to me - at least not when trying to argue from fundamental principles. I feel the DNN copyright issues will be ruled on from purely pragmatic position: what's the legal status that upends existing markets the least, and/or is most favored by lobbyists. -- [0] - I believe it's actually fundamentally the same thing.
- raincole 3y ago> I have a background in stylometry where you basically determine authorship by recording statistics on known pieces of writing to try to find the author of another piece of writing. So just extracting facts The logical jumping happens around this period symbol is spectacular.
- Pet_Ant 3y agoI was assuming people were familiar with the process and handwaving the rest. You measure things like: * What average sentence length? * What is the ratio of adjectives to nouns? * What percentage of sentences are in a passive voice? * What is the distribution of words used? * Is "the" used more often by the other than in general usage? * "whence" vs "when". * "tyre" vs "tire". Etc. This could all be printed out and sold as a book and each measure would be a very boring fact that is not copyrightable and contains no copyrightable content. I could give you a word frequency list from the A Song of Fire and Ice series and George RR Martin could do nothing about it. (Technically, he might have the rights to "Arya" and "Lannister", but to say "the word 'Lannister' appears 1,337 times in the series" would clearly fall under fair-use).
- raincole 3y agoSorry it's nonsense. You're basically saying: 1. Anything existing is considered a fact. 2. Stating a fact doesn't infringe copyright. The only conclusion your logic can infer to is copyright doesn't exist. For example, I can say "the first sentence of A Song of Fire and Ice series is <insert the first sentence>, the second sentence is <insert the second sentence>, the third sentence is...". It's still just a list of facts, so no copyright infringement, right?
- Pet_Ant 3y agoI think it that case if you went through the whole book like that a judge would argue that you are infringing because you can recover the whole book like that. But if you went by and grabbed the very first sentence from each chapter that's is sufficiently in the clear. Especially when you are doing something transformative with it. Like for example analysing what makes for an effective opening sentence. With copyright you always get to ugly slippery slope arguments, Tom Scott has a great video on it. But if you cannot extract something the replaces the original work you should be already in the clear. I'm pretty sure Cole's Notes don't need the original author's permission to print and they are arguably a substitute for reading the original work. I've skimmed through entire series by reading the individual episode summaries on Wikipedia. These are in the clear. The fact that a machine speeds up a human process does not change legality.
- brbrodude 3y ago'we' who?