4 ms·

> you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. People were putting tons o

> you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. People were putting tons of stuff on BBSs, intranets, and other stuff 20+ years beforehand because people had the idea of "consent" back then existed: using someones information for a purpose they didn't intend was (and still is) wrong.

FeepingCreature 3y ago
Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. I don't agree with that at all. I'm not even sure how to argue about that. Lots of art, science and technology can be considered as "using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend." It is extremely normal for people to find new uses for things; information is not exempt from this.
- pzs 3y ago
  Consider the thought experiment that you give your postal address to some business, because you want to subscribe to regular grocery deliveries. Then you notice that each delivered package contains a small transparent bag with some with powder in it. Whoever treats others' information can only do so with a clear purpose and for a defined time period according to current EU laws. If, however, you were referring to information that you published on the Internet for everyone's benefit then you would still need to consider intellectual property rights. In the open source software world we have the licenses that deal with this, and then there are copyright laws protecting content providers (not making a case here whether they are good or not). I guess what makes a difference is if there is some business involved either in the production or in the consumption side of the equation and if we accept that "machine learning" is the same as "human learning". EDIT: separated paragraphs, typo
  - visarga 3y ago
    Copyrights protect the copying of the original text, but models take gradients. Are gradients protected as well? Even when data is copyrighted it still has legitimate value for training, pure ideas don't get copyright protection, only expression.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Can the model use the text without making a copy (in memory) to process it?
      - PeterStuer 3y ago
        Can a human?
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        Not relevant. What humans do isn't necessarily viewed the same way as what machines do.
        visarga 3y ago
        Machines need to be prompted with the exact prefix to be able to retrieve any copyrighted fragment, and that doesn't work most of the times. So the intent for copyright circumvention is in the prompt. Temperature settings also matter.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        That could be besides the point as for the training the machines will create a copy in their memory - or is that no longer the case?
        visarga 3y ago
        I don't believe transient copies are the real issue here. Having a temporary copy stored locally in memory is more of a technical nuance than anything. That copy remains isolated and is not being distributed or shared. In contrast, using something like BitTorrent actively spreads copies across the internet. There are also cases where loading copyrighted content is unavoidable in order to even view the license terms. For example, a website could deny the right to copy its content before you even see the licensing details. Temporary copies enabled through normal usage like this should be permissible.
- tuyiown 3y ago
  > Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. Yet you would expect that people won't record your private conversations, and even less play it back to third parties. Exchanges, of whatever information, whether it is personal stories or administrative data occurs in some kind of trust on what kind use you consent to. Respecting this consent is a social obligation on the receiver end.
- godelski 3y ago
  > Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. How? It seems obviously correct. Suppose we trade nudes. You now sell my nudes online without my consent. You bet I have the right to sue you.
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    I think there's a fundamental difference between information passed in confidence for a specific purpose and information made publically available with an intended range of purposes. I do not believe that the latter is morally protected from unintended use.
    - godelski 3y ago
      Sure, but as is a big discussion in this thread, that public private distinction is quite messy. We don't have just private chats and old twitter style where everyone can see everything. Facebook has posts which you can share with only friends, or with even more limited groups. This changes your perceived privacy levels and expectations. We have various group chats with widely different expectations of privacy. But RTFA, because what it is discussing is not public facebook/twitter posts. I'm not sure why the discussion keeps moving there as if that's the only case. Besides, a public facebook post is still only visible to those on facebook. It is as public as a private country club, even if it's easy to get access. What about what you write in copilot? What about your code on github? In a private repo? The article mentions this is already protected under current law as personal information. The fundamental problem here is about consent. What would a reasonable person expect? 10 years ago certainly no one expected this. Mass gathering of data was only for the biggest of tech and governments. Now it's in the hands of anyone that wants to train an LLM. Things changed very fast and I think a lot of people are forgetting that.
      - FeepingCreature 3y ago
        > The fundamental problem here is about consent. What would a reasonable person expect? 10 years ago certainly no one expected this. I just don't think that's the right angle. I think if you're in the public sphere, the way that you anticipated your creations to be used just shouldn't matter at all. If you've given something to the public, the public should not be limited to whatever you thought they'd use it for. And the conversation keeps coming back to that because people keep making that argument. I specifically agree that private Facebook posts are not covered under this argument! However, I also think that consent as a basis for analysis just doesn't apply to public posts.
caturopath 3y ago
> That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. This isn't my recollection of a pre-facebook internet
vasco 3y ago
This seems like a fantasy. Anything could end up in 4chan with a photoshoped penis on it since a long time before Zuck came along.
- exabrial 3y ago
  4Chan came online in 2003. Facebook was 2004. I'm not sure what your point is.
icelancer 3y ago
> That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. The early days of the Internet were full of "information should be free" hackers, many of whom roam this very forum in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. Well, information is free now. And this is what it looks like - consumed by LLMs. We got what we asked for.
- scrollaway 3y ago
  Indeed. There was no expectation of privacy on the internet at the time and THAT is exactly why it was standard to not communicate personal information you didn’t want to share. Pseudonymity carried onto the internet until the Facebook days. I am still firmly in the Information wants to be free camp, and I agree with you that LLMs scanning it is a logical continuation of it all.

FeepingCreature 3y ago

Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. I don't agree with that at all. I'm not even sure how to argue about that. Lots of art, science and technology can be considered as "using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend." It is extremely normal for people to find new uses for things; information is not exempt from this.

pzs 3y ago
Consider the thought experiment that you give your postal address to some business, because you want to subscribe to regular grocery deliveries. Then you notice that each delivered package contains a small transparent bag with some with powder in it. Whoever treats others' information can only do so with a clear purpose and for a defined time period according to current EU laws. If, however, you were referring to information that you published on the Internet for everyone's benefit then you would still need to consider intellectual property rights. In the open source software world we have the licenses that deal with this, and then there are copyright laws protecting content providers (not making a case here whether they are good or not). I guess what makes a difference is if there is some business involved either in the production or in the consumption side of the equation and if we accept that "machine learning" is the same as "human learning". EDIT: separated paragraphs, typo
- visarga 3y ago
  Copyrights protect the copying of the original text, but models take gradients. Are gradients protected as well? Even when data is copyrighted it still has legitimate value for training, pure ideas don't get copyright protection, only expression.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Can the model use the text without making a copy (in memory) to process it?
    - PeterStuer 3y ago
      Can a human?
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Not relevant. What humans do isn't necessarily viewed the same way as what machines do.
        visarga 3y ago
        Machines need to be prompted with the exact prefix to be able to retrieve any copyrighted fragment, and that doesn't work most of the times. So the intent for copyright circumvention is in the prompt. Temperature settings also matter.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        That could be besides the point as for the training the machines will create a copy in their memory - or is that no longer the case?
        visarga 3y ago
        I don't believe transient copies are the real issue here. Having a temporary copy stored locally in memory is more of a technical nuance than anything. That copy remains isolated and is not being distributed or shared. In contrast, using something like BitTorrent actively spreads copies across the internet. There are also cases where loading copyrighted content is unavoidable in order to even view the license terms. For example, a website could deny the right to copy its content before you even see the licensing details. Temporary copies enabled through normal usage like this should be permissible.
tuyiown 3y ago
> Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. Yet you would expect that people won't record your private conversations, and even less play it back to third parties. Exchanges, of whatever information, whether it is personal stories or administrative data occurs in some kind of trust on what kind use you consent to. Respecting this consent is a social obligation on the receiver end.
godelski 3y ago
> Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. How? It seems obviously correct. Suppose we trade nudes. You now sell my nudes online without my consent. You bet I have the right to sue you.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  I think there's a fundamental difference between information passed in confidence for a specific purpose and information made publically available with an intended range of purposes. I do not believe that the latter is morally protected from unintended use.
  - godelski 3y ago
    Sure, but as is a big discussion in this thread, that public private distinction is quite messy. We don't have just private chats and old twitter style where everyone can see everything. Facebook has posts which you can share with only friends, or with even more limited groups. This changes your perceived privacy levels and expectations. We have various group chats with widely different expectations of privacy. But RTFA, because what it is discussing is not public facebook/twitter posts. I'm not sure why the discussion keeps moving there as if that's the only case. Besides, a public facebook post is still only visible to those on facebook. It is as public as a private country club, even if it's easy to get access. What about what you write in copilot? What about your code on github? In a private repo? The article mentions this is already protected under current law as personal information. The fundamental problem here is about consent. What would a reasonable person expect? 10 years ago certainly no one expected this. Mass gathering of data was only for the biggest of tech and governments. Now it's in the hands of anyone that wants to train an LLM. Things changed very fast and I think a lot of people are forgetting that.
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      > The fundamental problem here is about consent. What would a reasonable person expect? 10 years ago certainly no one expected this. I just don't think that's the right angle. I think if you're in the public sphere, the way that you anticipated your creations to be used just shouldn't matter at all. If you've given something to the public, the public should not be limited to whatever you thought they'd use it for. And the conversation keeps coming back to that because people keep making that argument. I specifically agree that private Facebook posts are not covered under this argument! However, I also think that consent as a basis for analysis just doesn't apply to public posts.

caturopath 3y ago

> That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. This isn't my recollection of a pre-facebook internet

vasco 3y ago

This seems like a fantasy. Anything could end up in 4chan with a photoshoped penis on it since a long time before Zuck came along.

exabrial 3y ago
4Chan came online in 2003. Facebook was 2004. I'm not sure what your point is.

icelancer 3y ago

> That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. The early days of the Internet were full of "information should be free" hackers, many of whom roam this very forum in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. Well, information is free now. And this is what it looks like - consumed by LLMs. We got what we asked for.

scrollaway 3y ago
Indeed. There was no expectation of privacy on the internet at the time and THAT is exactly why it was standard to not communicate personal information you didn’t want to share. Pseudonymity carried onto the internet until the Facebook days. I am still firmly in the Information wants to be free camp, and I agree with you that LLMs scanning it is a logical continuation of it all.