3 ms·

> If you are allowed to - in a public square - recite from memory an article you read on the internet You are in fact not allowed to do that

by rmorey 3y ago

Terretta 3y ago
>> If you are allowed to - in a public square - recite from memory an article you read on the internet > You are in fact not allowed to do that You're arguing poetry “recitals” aren't legal? Copyright law is designed to protect original work from being used in a way that could harm the creator's interests, typically economically. In the case of a public recital, we have: 1. Fair Use presuming it's a one-time event, non-commercial, with no impact on market value 2. Public Performance generally means plays, music, movies, things that are a "performance". Reciting the article isn't the performance of something designed to be a performance, in fact it's arguably transformative. 3. Copyright infringement usually concerns reproduction, distribution, or commercial exploitation. A random, one-time, live recitation doesn't easily fall into these categories, and enforcing copyright in such a scenario would be impractical and unusual. Certainly there are ways this could go differently. If the recital were to be recorded and distributed, or if it were done 9 to 5 daily as a "news barker" reading every top article from a soapbox as an alternative to the newsstand nearby ... could be a problem.
- rmorey 3y ago
  > You're arguing poetry “recitals” aren't legal? No. I think the strongest point you make is the one-time thing. But I still think, in general, simply reproducing an article via speech verbatim would not be found fair use (not saying whether it should or shouldn't be, nor whether this at all applies to GPT, nor whether it's right or wrong, nor whether practically anyone would face consequence for it)
  - altruios 3y ago
    Is it illegal to hallucinate and say words that happen to be verbatim a copy-write article you read once a blue moon ago? The key point is - this isn't being copied from the website, it's being generated from the model. this is not copied copywrite work being copied. What that is is speech. Is it protected speech?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The key point is - this isn't being copied from the website Yes, it is. It was copied from the website into the models training set, compressed into the model, and then reproduced from the compressed form. > What that is is speech. Even if it was, the Constitutional protection on speech vis-a-vis the copyright power is coextensive with statutory fair use (a codification of Constitutional case law), so that assertion doesn't, even if accepted as meaningfully true, change how copyright law applies.
      - altruios 3y ago
        data (the website) is being 'seen' by a model. training data is NOT the model. there is NO text from any website in any LLM model. The website is not being copied to an internal model anywhere, it is being looked (processed through an LLM) at and trained on... If you can find it on the (open and public facing) internet, then it's fair game to everyone (and everything) to 'see'.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > data (the website) is being 'seen' by a model. The quotes around “seen” are appropriate since its at best a metaphor. A literal copy is made of the data (along with other data) to create the training set, and then a process is run which creates a lossy compressed representation of all the data in that training set, and that lossy compressed representation is called a model. > there is NO text from any website in any LLM model. There is, just as if you make a collage out of a series of pictures and then apply a lossy image compression algorithm visual data from those pictures is included in the compressed reperesentation. > The website is not being copied to an internal model This is simply false. That's exactly what is happening. > it is being looked (processed through an LLM) at and trained on... That is (lossily) copying into the trained model. > If you can find it on the (open and public facing) internet, then it's fair game to everyone (and everything) to 'see'. It is not free to those who see it to reproduce it; public display of a copyright-protected work doesn't waive protection, and even where seeing is a literal rather than metaphorical description, as for a human reader of a protected work, reproduction of the work or creationnof derivative after having seen it is prohibited.

> If you are allowed to - in a public square - recite from memory an article you read on the internet You are in fact not allowed to do that

by rmorey 3y ago

> If you are allowed to - in a public square - recite from memory an article you read on the internet You are in fact not allowed to do that

Terretta 3y ago

>> If you are allowed to - in a public square - recite from memory an article you read on the internet > You are in fact not allowed to do that You're arguing poetry “recitals” aren't legal? Copyright law is designed to protect original work from being used in a way that could harm the creator's interests, typically economically. In the case of a public recital, we have: 1. Fair Use presuming it's a one-time event, non-commercial, with no impact on market value 2. Public Performance generally means plays, music, movies, things that are a "performance". Reciting the article isn't the performance of something designed to be a performance, in fact it's arguably transformative. 3. Copyright infringement usually concerns reproduction, distribution, or commercial exploitation. A random, one-time, live recitation doesn't easily fall into these categories, and enforcing copyright in such a scenario would be impractical and unusual. Certainly there are ways this could go differently. If the recital were to be recorded and distributed, or if it were done 9 to 5 daily as a "news barker" reading every top article from a soapbox as an alternative to the newsstand nearby ... could be a problem.

rmorey 3y ago
> You're arguing poetry “recitals” aren't legal? No. I think the strongest point you make is the one-time thing. But I still think, in general, simply reproducing an article via speech verbatim would not be found fair use (not saying whether it should or shouldn't be, nor whether this at all applies to GPT, nor whether it's right or wrong, nor whether practically anyone would face consequence for it)
- altruios 3y ago
  Is it illegal to hallucinate and say words that happen to be verbatim a copy-write article you read once a blue moon ago? The key point is - this isn't being copied from the website, it's being generated from the model. this is not copied copywrite work being copied. What that is is speech. Is it protected speech?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The key point is - this isn't being copied from the website Yes, it is. It was copied from the website into the models training set, compressed into the model, and then reproduced from the compressed form. > What that is is speech. Even if it was, the Constitutional protection on speech vis-a-vis the copyright power is coextensive with statutory fair use (a codification of Constitutional case law), so that assertion doesn't, even if accepted as meaningfully true, change how copyright law applies.
    - altruios 3y ago
      data (the website) is being 'seen' by a model. training data is NOT the model. there is NO text from any website in any LLM model. The website is not being copied to an internal model anywhere, it is being looked (processed through an LLM) at and trained on... If you can find it on the (open and public facing) internet, then it's fair game to everyone (and everything) to 'see'.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > data (the website) is being 'seen' by a model. The quotes around “seen” are appropriate since its at best a metaphor. A literal copy is made of the data (along with other data) to create the training set, and then a process is run which creates a lossy compressed representation of all the data in that training set, and that lossy compressed representation is called a model. > there is NO text from any website in any LLM model. There is, just as if you make a collage out of a series of pictures and then apply a lossy image compression algorithm visual data from those pictures is included in the compressed reperesentation. > The website is not being copied to an internal model This is simply false. That's exactly what is happening. > it is being looked (processed through an LLM) at and trained on... That is (lossily) copying into the trained model. > If you can find it on the (open and public facing) internet, then it's fair game to everyone (and everything) to 'see'. It is not free to those who see it to reproduce it; public display of a copyright-protected work doesn't waive protection, and even where seeing is a literal rather than metaphorical description, as for a human reader of a protected work, reproduction of the work or creationnof derivative after having seen it is prohibited.