3 ms·
Isn’t this tantamount to an admission of willfully flaunting copyright law? Edit: I'm not 100% sure, but I think my comment is being interpreted uncharitably.
by voiceblue 3y ago
Isn’t this tantamount to an admission of willfully flaunting copyright law?
Edit: I'm not 100% sure, but I think my comment is being interpreted uncharitably. I would like to grab your finger, which is pressed squarely atop "output of other LLMs", and move it over a bit to the label of "website with unknown and almost certainly copyright content". And then, I would like to point out that there is a difference between training on such data with the benefit of plausible deniability (e.g. some third party), versus going specifically after data you know to be copyrighted, and then claiming that this is precisely the reason why your model will spit such content out verbatim. At that point, you might as well indict yourself, no?
- WillPostForFood 3y agoIf you consider learning from reading copyrighted material flaunting copyright law, then yes. If you think flaunting copyright law is limited to reproduction of copyright law, then no.
- simonw 3y agoShow me a useful LLM that hasn't been trained on copyrighted data. (I'm hoping it's possible to do that, but I've not seen an example yet.)
- minimaxir 3y agoTechnically the original BERT was mostly trained on Wikipedia (with some potentially-copyrighted books in BookCorpora)
- simonw 3y agoYeah that's what I was trying to hint at when I said "useful" - I'm looking for a general purpose LLM, GPT-3 level or higher. (BERT was useful but not GPT-3 useful.)
- eli 3y agoWikipedia content is also copyrighted, and it’s unlikely that an LLM reproducing it is compatible with its license terms.
- tomcam 3y agoAll LLMs have this potential problem. In the USA whether it flouts copyright will inevitably be determined by the Supreme Court.
- eli 3y agoCongress. Supreme Court isn’t supposed to make new laws and the current ones plainly don’t cover this situation.
- tomcam 3y agoHope you’re right. You should be. But Congress can’t even pass a budget. It is my theory this will be solved in court.
- smegger001 3y agoProbably for the better while I don't trust the Supreme Court on any partisan issues with their current make up, on nonpartisan they are more likely to be grown ups and actually research and consider the issue rationally rather than try and defened us from skynet or other fictional ai boogiemen by only allowing fortune 500 companies and the dod to play with ai.
- krapp 3y agoThe Supreme Court makes and unmakes new laws all the time, and I wish people would stop pretending they didn't. Separation of powers only really exists on paper in the US - in practice, any separation between powers only exists between political parties, and even their mutual hostility is mostly for show.
- eli 3y agoSure but I don't think it's going to happen here. We actually need new laws, and the people with the money agree
- knome 3y agoEven if the question of whether using public data to train AI is considered a form of infringement vs transformative fair use similar to a search engine was answered and that answer was 'yes it is infringement', training on the output of other AIs would seem hard to sell as infringement as AI output cannot be copyrighted since it has no human creative inputs. https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receiv... >not a lawyer, go ask one if you need a legal opinion
- notatoad 3y agonobody is claiming that their LLM is not trained on copyrighted materials. OpenAI and Grok will both freely admit to that. the copyright debate is only over whether training on copyright materials is fair use or not.
- prepend 3y agoHow does training in copyrighted data a violation? Copyright is about distribution, not about use. At least until some new laws passed. It would be copyright violation if they pirated the material. But assuming they bought or scraped, they would be good.
- blindriver 3y agoChatGPT output can't be copyrighted because it was generated by an AI.
- minimaxir 3y agoThe reason your initial comment got a negative reaction is because "ChatGPT violates copyright" is a rhetoric argument that's often nonconstructive and it's starting to get old seeing it in every submissions about LLMs. The core issue is that no one knows how copyright law will impact training an LLM until legal precedent is set, which is exactly what's being argued in civil suits now.