4 ms·
So presumably when they fix that issue (which, if the text matches exactly, should be trivially easy) then would you accept that as a sufficient remedy?
by cycrutchfield 3y ago
So presumably when they fix that issue (which, if the text matches exactly, should be trivially easy) then would you accept that as a sufficient remedy?
- tarruda 3y ago> then would you accept that as a sufficient remedy? Probably not until they pay him a hefty copyright fee.
- Vegenoid 3y agoCopyright infringement is not avoided by changing some text so it isn’t an exact clone of the source. Determining whether a work violates a copyright requires holistic consideration of the similarity of the work to the copyrighted material, the purpose of the work, and the work’s impact on the copyright holder. There is not an algorithm for this, cases are decided on by people. There are algorithms that could detect obvious violations of copyright, such as the one you suggest which looks for exact matches to copyrighted material. However, there are many potential outputs, or patterns of output, which would be copyright violation and would not be caught by this trivial test.
- cycrutchfield 3y agoAnd you think that it would be impossible to train a model to avoid outputs that are substantially similar to training data?
- Vegenoid 3y agoI certainly don't think it's impossible, but I think it is hard problem that won't be solved in the immediate future, and creators of data used for training are right to seek to stop wide availability of LLMs that regurgitate information they worked hard to obtain.
- cycrutchfield 3y agoI think it will be a bit easier than you believe. The reason why it hasn’t been done yet is that there hasn’t been a compelling economic reason to do so.
- bloppe 3y agoBasically, ya. It's not enough to change just a couple words around. But ya, there's probably some way to engineer around the problem.