5 ms·

I'm not sure it's always true to say "100 GB of weights don't resemble any work". If I train a model on a famous poem or something, and it turns out if you ask

I'm not sure it's always true to say "100 GB of weights don't resemble any work". If I train a model on a famous poem or something, and it turns out if you ask the model to quote the poem verbatim, it can, then the model contains the poem. Have I not "copied" the poem into the model?

visarga 3y ago
You can simply copy the poem in much less space if that's what you want, but incidental replication is not the same with copying. When you train a model, you use 1T...20T tokens, with deduplication to reduce direct memorization. Then the model is a superposition of gradients from trillions of tokens, no longer just a copy of a poem, it could also write a commentary about it or compose new ones. GPT4 summarizes this in a haiku: "Superposition bright, Gradients blend in the night, New poems take flight."
- philipwhiuk 3y ago
  > GPT4 summarizes this in a haiku: This has never added any value to a comment. Stop doing it.
  - sakjur 3y ago
    It’s also not a haiku afaict. Doesn’t superposition have five syllables?
    - topaz0 3y ago
      yep
      - visarga 3y ago
        better than I would have been able to make, anyway
        topaz0 3y ago
        You're selling yourself short. It's not hard to count syllables.
  - topaz0 3y ago
    Also note, it's not a haiku
- cle 3y ago
  My understanding is that the law ultimately cares about the market impact on the copyright holder, and balancing that with the interests of the public. I don't think the courts will be swayed by arguments based on technicalities like this.
  - fortyseven 3y ago
    The law doesn't care about the technicalities...? It damned well better.
    - cle 3y ago
      "Technicality" here means an argument that follows a strict/formal interpretation to arrive at a conclusion that is inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the law.
    - danaris 3y ago
      The law doesn't care about technology technicalities. It cares about legal technicalities. The law doesn't care, for instance, that the MP3 file of Beyoncé's latest hit is not the same bits in the same order as the original master file created when she recorded it. That holds true no matter how many times you re-encode it into different formats. As things stand, there has been no definitive ruling on the matter of ML model training and copyright; I don't know how that will end up shaking out, and honestly, I'm not yet sure how I think things should shake out in any detail. I think that people whose works are being used to fuel massive profit-generating engines for the very wealthy should have some right to give or revoke consent, but I'm not at all sure offhand if there's a realistic way to do that without serious unintended consequences. But I am sure that arguing that the precise technical nature of how the transformations are performed means that nothing is actually being "copied" should not, and is unlikely to, hold much legal water.

visarga 3y ago

You can simply copy the poem in much less space if that's what you want, but incidental replication is not the same with copying. When you train a model, you use 1T...20T tokens, with deduplication to reduce direct memorization. Then the model is a superposition of gradients from trillions of tokens, no longer just a copy of a poem, it could also write a commentary about it or compose new ones. GPT4 summarizes this in a haiku: "Superposition bright, Gradients blend in the night, New poems take flight."

philipwhiuk 3y ago
> GPT4 summarizes this in a haiku: This has never added any value to a comment. Stop doing it.
- sakjur 3y ago
  It’s also not a haiku afaict. Doesn’t superposition have five syllables?
  - topaz0 3y ago
    yep
    - visarga 3y ago
      better than I would have been able to make, anyway
      - topaz0 3y ago
        You're selling yourself short. It's not hard to count syllables.
- topaz0 3y ago
  Also note, it's not a haiku
cle 3y ago
My understanding is that the law ultimately cares about the market impact on the copyright holder, and balancing that with the interests of the public. I don't think the courts will be swayed by arguments based on technicalities like this.
- fortyseven 3y ago
  The law doesn't care about the technicalities...? It damned well better.
  - cle 3y ago
    "Technicality" here means an argument that follows a strict/formal interpretation to arrive at a conclusion that is inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the law.
  - danaris 3y ago
    The law doesn't care about technology technicalities. It cares about legal technicalities. The law doesn't care, for instance, that the MP3 file of Beyoncé's latest hit is not the same bits in the same order as the original master file created when she recorded it. That holds true no matter how many times you re-encode it into different formats. As things stand, there has been no definitive ruling on the matter of ML model training and copyright; I don't know how that will end up shaking out, and honestly, I'm not yet sure how I think things should shake out in any detail. I think that people whose works are being used to fuel massive profit-generating engines for the very wealthy should have some right to give or revoke consent, but I'm not at all sure offhand if there's a realistic way to do that without serious unintended consequences. But I am sure that arguing that the precise technical nature of how the transformations are performed means that nothing is actually being "copied" should not, and is unlikely to, hold much legal water.