4 ms·

The new York Times has examples where GPT will reproduce world for word exactly paragraphs of their (copyrighted) text if you ask it to. That's a pretty fixed t

The new York Times has examples where GPT will reproduce world for word exactly paragraphs of their (copyrighted) text if you ask it to. That's a pretty fixed tangible expression I think.

encomiast 3y ago
For sure, that could be an instance of infringement depending on how it is used. But that's a minuscule percentage of the output and still might be fair use (read the decision in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). But even if that instance is determined to be infringement, it doesn't mean the process of training models on copyrighted work is also infringement.
- wheelie_boy 3y ago
  I can see 3 ways that you can guarantee that the output of a model never violates copyright 1. Models are trained with 100% uncopyrighted or properly licensed input data 2. Every output of the ML model is evaluated to make sure it's not too close to training data 3. Copyright law is changed to have a specific cutout for AI #1 is the approach taken by Adobe, although it generally is harder or more expensive to do. #2 destroys most AI business models #3 has been done in some countries, but seems likely that if done in the US it would still have some limits. For example, I could train a model on a single image, song, or piece of written text/code. Then I run inference, and get out an exact copy of that image, song, or text. If there are no limits around AI and copyright, then we've got a loophole around all of copyright law. I don't think that the US would be up for devaluing intellectual property like that.
  - encomiast 3y ago
    The much more likely scenario is that there is a precedent-setting court case. This is how it happened with practically every other instance of copyright bumping into technology.
  - cornel_io 3y ago
    The much more likely outcome: 4. A ruling comes down that enshrines what all the big companies have been doing (with the blessings of their armies of expensive, talented, and conservative legal teams) as legitimate fair use
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jdiff 3y ago
MidJourney, too. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 It's frankly impressive how well this image is embedded in the weights of their model, down to tufts of hair. And it's far from the only one.
brigadier132 3y ago
> The new York Times has examples where GPT will reproduce world for word exactly paragraphs of their (copyrighted) text if you ask it to You are forgetting the massive asterisk that you need to provide multiple paragraphs of the original article in order to get verbatim output from chatgpt. In what world are people doing that to avoid paying the NYT?
- eigenket 3y ago
  This is absolutely not true. Here is an article where ars technica tried it https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/ny-times-sues-open-ai-microsoft-over-copyright-infringement/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/ny-times-sues-op... And this is a screenshot of their session whith copilot https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screen-Shot-2023-12-27-at-12.11.54-PM.png https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Scree...
  - jdiff 3y ago
    This does not match what GP claimed, that when prompted with the start of an article, GPT 3 (mostly) faithfully completes it. The original article also claimed that it seemed to have been patched shortly after publication.
    - eigenket 3y ago
      It does match exactly what I claimed and it also states that even though the behavior was patched in GPT the ars people were able to easily reproduce it in copilot. Its funny that the behavior was patched if OpenAI believes it isn't copyright infringement.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
That is evidence that GPT Can violate copyright, not that all of the outputs do. It supports an argument that GPT shouldnt produce outputs that are extremely similar, not that the content can not be used as an input.
- blibble 3y ago
  I suspect a single verbatim output of sufficient length is enough to poison the entire weight set as a derivative work as well as all the output it ever generated
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I dont necessarily disagree, but by what logic or argument do you make that case? Does that mean that models that can not produce copies of X length ARE fair use?
    - blibble 3y ago
      > Does that mean that models that can not produce copies of X length ARE fair use? not necessarily "sufficient but not necessary" I believe is the term
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Sure, but then you need an additional line of rationale and logic to cover those other cases.
        blibble 3y ago
        I suspect that single case will catch all of them
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Thats pretty silly. you can just put a gatekeeper to prevent it from spitting out anything too similar, or prevent a user from forcing it to. it is not an intractable or pervasive problem. it is a fringe case that rarely occurs, and only with a lot of user prompting.

The new York Times has examples where GPT will reproduce world for word exactly paragraphs of their (copyrighted) text if you ask it to. That's a pretty fixed tangible expression I think.

encomiast 3y ago

For sure, that could be an instance of infringement depending on how it is used. But that's a minuscule percentage of the output and still might be fair use (read the decision in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). But even if that instance is determined to be infringement, it doesn't mean the process of training models on copyrighted work is also infringement.

wheelie_boy 3y ago
I can see 3 ways that you can guarantee that the output of a model never violates copyright 1. Models are trained with 100% uncopyrighted or properly licensed input data 2. Every output of the ML model is evaluated to make sure it's not too close to training data 3. Copyright law is changed to have a specific cutout for AI #1 is the approach taken by Adobe, although it generally is harder or more expensive to do. #2 destroys most AI business models #3 has been done in some countries, but seems likely that if done in the US it would still have some limits. For example, I could train a model on a single image, song, or piece of written text/code. Then I run inference, and get out an exact copy of that image, song, or text. If there are no limits around AI and copyright, then we've got a loophole around all of copyright law. I don't think that the US would be up for devaluing intellectual property like that.
- encomiast 3y ago
  The much more likely scenario is that there is a precedent-setting court case. This is how it happened with practically every other instance of copyright bumping into technology.
- cornel_io 3y ago
  The much more likely outcome: 4. A ruling comes down that enshrines what all the big companies have been doing (with the blessings of their armies of expensive, talented, and conservative legal teams) as legitimate fair use
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jdiff 3y ago

MidJourney, too. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 It's frankly impressive how well this image is embedded in the weights of their model, down to tufts of hair. And it's far from the only one.

brigadier132 3y ago

> The new York Times has examples where GPT will reproduce world for word exactly paragraphs of their (copyrighted) text if you ask it to You are forgetting the massive asterisk that you need to provide multiple paragraphs of the original article in order to get verbatim output from chatgpt. In what world are people doing that to avoid paying the NYT?

eigenket 3y ago
This is absolutely not true. Here is an article where ars technica tried it https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/ny-times-sues-open-ai-microsoft-over-copyright-infringement/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/ny-times-sues-op... And this is a screenshot of their session whith copilot https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screen-Shot-2023-12-27-at-12.11.54-PM.png https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Scree...
- jdiff 3y ago
  This does not match what GP claimed, that when prompted with the start of an article, GPT 3 (mostly) faithfully completes it. The original article also claimed that it seemed to have been patched shortly after publication.
  - eigenket 3y ago
    It does match exactly what I claimed and it also states that even though the behavior was patched in GPT the ars people were able to easily reproduce it in copilot. Its funny that the behavior was patched if OpenAI believes it isn't copyright infringement.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

That is evidence that GPT Can violate copyright, not that all of the outputs do. It supports an argument that GPT shouldnt produce outputs that are extremely similar, not that the content can not be used as an input.

blibble 3y ago
I suspect a single verbatim output of sufficient length is enough to poison the entire weight set as a derivative work as well as all the output it ever generated
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I dont necessarily disagree, but by what logic or argument do you make that case? Does that mean that models that can not produce copies of X length ARE fair use?
  - blibble 3y ago
    > Does that mean that models that can not produce copies of X length ARE fair use? not necessarily "sufficient but not necessary" I believe is the term
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Sure, but then you need an additional line of rationale and logic to cover those other cases.
      - blibble 3y ago
        I suspect that single case will catch all of them
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Thats pretty silly. you can just put a gatekeeper to prevent it from spitting out anything too similar, or prevent a user from forcing it to. it is not an intractable or pervasive problem. it is a fringe case that rarely occurs, and only with a lot of user prompting.