4 ms·
I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that the infringement would be in the publication of the output of the models, not in the mere existence of the models. Let
by fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that the infringement would be in the publication of the output of the models, not in the mere existence of the models.
Let’s imagine a really obvious case of copyright infringement - where a shady publisher buys up copywritten books, assembles them into a private library, then prints and sells copies. The infringement is the “prints and sells”, right? Not the “assembles a private library”?
If we accept that ChatGPT is committing copyright infringement (which at least seems true if it returns big chunks of the copywritten material verbatim), I don’t think you can get from there to compelling deletion of the model.
- blowski 3y agoA lot of analogies break down here. This is just an early salvo in many arguments to come, that will need reasoned debate by competent people, judged by wise leaders. I really hope we can have that debate.
- crmd 3y agoSimply duplicating copyrighted data is itself a crime in certain jurisdictions.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y agoThe LLM model is fixed somewhere in a tangible medium and it (allegedly) includes an unlicensed copy of a copyrighted work. The LLM spitting that out to users is (allegedly) both an infringement and evidence the model itself is infringing.
- brookst 3y agoIsn’t that a massive misunderstanding of LLMs? If I have infinite monkeys and typewriters, that does not mean the typewriters (or monkeys) contain copyrighted text. LLMs are basically an optimization of infinite monkeys using statistics. I can see how outputs can be infringing copyright, but I’m having a very hard time seeing how the weights can be. It feels like saying a musician is infringing copyright if they understand a song well enough to be able to create an infringing reproduction, even if they don’t.