4 ms·
But they do in fact produce copies of their training materials. This has been demonstrated both with image generation (a targeted query will reproduce a very si
by otikik 3y ago
But they do in fact produce copies of their training materials. This has been demonstrated both with image generation (a targeted query will reproduce a very similar image to the one used in training) and in source code generation (a machine produced the source code of a program that it had been trained over).
- simonw 3y agoThe NYT lawsuit includes 100 examples of GPT-4 being able to produce copies of its training data, not using RAG: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/Lawsuit-Document-dkt-1-68-Ex-J.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/Lawsuit-Document-dk...
- breadwinner 3y agoNYT is cheating here because their prompt is a portion of articles from NYT. A normal user of ChatGPT does not do that. If ChatGPT reproduces text from NYT articles under "normal use" where the prompt is not designed to get it to reproduce text then that would certainly be copyright violation.
- monsieurbanana 3y agoTwo comments up in this thread GPT cannot reproduce copyrighted text. Now GPT can reproduce copyrighted text, but only under some circumstances that are totally cheating so they don't count?
- anotherhue 3y agoI use torrents to download Linux isos, but if I know a special thing to ask for I can get movies? It's not a normal request your honour, pay no attention.
- sheepdestroyer 3y agoIntent matters in the tool's usage result ; be it a torrent client, a knife or a LLM. It really seems disingenuous to blatantly prompt the llm to regurgitate a precise work by "citing" a portion, and then says the equivalent of: "see, knives kill (as you can see now that I plunged one in this poor victim...)!". Don't do that then, knives are still fine to peal apples.
- mpweiher 3y agoSo creating a database that contains copyrighted text is fine as long as you say "please don't execute the queries that extract the copyrighted text I stored for you"? Not sure that line of argumentation is going to get you very far. Particularly since those texts that are not precise verbatim copies of the copyrighted text that you do store appear to be derivative works of that copyrighted text. And thus also fall under copyright.
- irthomasthomas 3y agoI think that's fine. Chatgpt is my typewriter. It only becomes a copyright issue if I choose to publish it's output, right? And then the fault is with me for distributing it, not chatgpt for typing it.
- breadwinner 3y agoMicrosoft's AI doesn't reproduce copyrighted source code. They are so confident about this that they are indemnifying customers, see: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2023/09/07/copilot-copyright-commitment-ai-legal-concerns/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2023/09/07/copilot...
- tahnyall 3y ago[dead]
- ryandvm 3y agoSure, and if you show me the Pepsi logo 3000 times I can draw a pretty good copy of it. I think that's mostly irrelevant to the conversation. Logically, I find myself on the side of the "humans aren't so special" side of this debate. We should encumber AIs with the same restrictions humans have when it comes to their "education". Sure you have to have a legal right to read/train on the material, but what you later produce is not necessarily a copyright violation. If the LLM is straight up plagiarizing copyrighted material, then yes, the vendor should be responsible for damages. Otherwise, if what we're trying to do is just sabotage these new-fangled digital looms because we don't want to compete with them, then well, I think there is a term for people that do that.
- dcow 3y agoExactly. Downstream uses are the responsibility of the person using the content, not the engine that generated it.