3 ms·

I disagree. The verbatim part is the problem. You’re drawing a comparison to how humans operate except we’re not allowed to operate like that. While harder to

I disagree. The verbatim part is the problem. You’re drawing a comparison to how humans operate except we’re not allowed to operate like that. While harder to do as a human, if memorised a copyrighted book and then did a live reading on TV, or produced replicas from memory and sold them (the most comparable example), I’d be sued. Humans produce derivative work all the time, and it’s fine for LLM’s to do that, but you can’t do it verbatim.

logicchains 3y ago
>or produced replicas from memory and sold them (the most comparable example), I’d be sued. This is not the most comparable example, because it's not what ChatGPT is doing. The most comparable example is if you were hired as a contractor and the employer asked you to write verbatim some copyright content you'd memorised. If the employer then published it, they'd be the one liable, not you. >Humans produce derivative work all the time, and it’s fine for LLM’s to do that, but you can’t do it verbatim. Nobody's suggesting preventing humans from consuming any copyrighted content just because in future they might recite some of it verbatim, but that's what NYT want for LLMs.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > The most comparable example is if you were hired as a contractor and the employer asked you to write verbatim some copyright content you'd memorised. If the employer then published it, they'd be the one liable, not you. No, you'd both be liable. You are not allowed to create copies of a copyrighted work, even from memory, for any commercial purpose. Making it public or not is irrelevant. This is more obvious with spftware: if I copy a version of AutoCAD that my previous employer bought and sell it to another company, or even just use it for my current employer without showing it to anyone else, I am violating the copyright on that software, and I am liable. Even though obviously no "publishing" happened. Similarly, if you hire a decorator to paint Mickey Mouse on the inside walls of your private kindergarten, the decorator is violating Disney's copyright just as much as you are, even if neither of you has made that public.
  - YuccaGloriosa 3y ago
    Your previous employer never bought AutoCAD, they licenced its use, paying a subscription. When you start working for them that licence was no longer available to you. So you would be unable to subsequently use it.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      Unable legally, but I may find illegal ways. And the reason it is illegal to copy is copyright at the end. The license is only (legally) required because of copyright.
kromem 3y ago
Then we should be focused on policing the usage of the model, not the training of it. That's the point at which infringement occurs in your example. It's not the memorizing that's the infringement, it's the reproduction from your memory. We shouldn't be regulating your hippocampus encoding the book, but your reproducing the book from that encoding. Similarly, we shouldn't be regulating the encoding of material into the NN, but the NN spitting back out the material.

logicchains 3y ago

>or produced replicas from memory and sold them (the most comparable example), I’d be sued. This is not the most comparable example, because it's not what ChatGPT is doing. The most comparable example is if you were hired as a contractor and the employer asked you to write verbatim some copyright content you'd memorised. If the employer then published it, they'd be the one liable, not you. >Humans produce derivative work all the time, and it’s fine for LLM’s to do that, but you can’t do it verbatim. Nobody's suggesting preventing humans from consuming any copyrighted content just because in future they might recite some of it verbatim, but that's what NYT want for LLMs.

tsimionescu 3y ago
> The most comparable example is if you were hired as a contractor and the employer asked you to write verbatim some copyright content you'd memorised. If the employer then published it, they'd be the one liable, not you. No, you'd both be liable. You are not allowed to create copies of a copyrighted work, even from memory, for any commercial purpose. Making it public or not is irrelevant. This is more obvious with spftware: if I copy a version of AutoCAD that my previous employer bought and sell it to another company, or even just use it for my current employer without showing it to anyone else, I am violating the copyright on that software, and I am liable. Even though obviously no "publishing" happened. Similarly, if you hire a decorator to paint Mickey Mouse on the inside walls of your private kindergarten, the decorator is violating Disney's copyright just as much as you are, even if neither of you has made that public.
- YuccaGloriosa 3y ago
  Your previous employer never bought AutoCAD, they licenced its use, paying a subscription. When you start working for them that licence was no longer available to you. So you would be unable to subsequently use it.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Unable legally, but I may find illegal ways. And the reason it is illegal to copy is copyright at the end. The license is only (legally) required because of copyright.

kromem 3y ago

Then we should be focused on policing the usage of the model, not the training of it. That's the point at which infringement occurs in your example. It's not the memorizing that's the infringement, it's the reproduction from your memory. We shouldn't be regulating your hippocampus encoding the book, but your reproducing the book from that encoding. Similarly, we shouldn't be regulating the encoding of material into the NN, but the NN spitting back out the material.