4 ms·
the weights themselves are still a derivative work even if they post-filter legal discovery could almost certainly compel the LLM host to provide access to the
by blibble 3y ago
the weights themselves are still a derivative work even if they post-filter
legal discovery could almost certainly compel the LLM host to provide access to the output of the weights themselves without the "gatekeeper" present
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI don't buy the argument that the models are not sufficiently transformative. Nobody would look at a weight table and confuse it for the original work, and it is different in basically every way. If there is a case to be made, I think it has to be around the original use of the works, the transcription process. Not the weights, or the output
- eigenket 3y agoNo one would look at a veracrypt archive containing a copyrighted work and confuse it either. They look very different to the original files but both the encrypted file and the learning model's weights allow one to reproduce the copyrighted work.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoNot falling back to the argument that the output is infringing, not the archive. If the archive can't produce the original work, it's not infringing. If you printed the binary of Harry Potter and sold it as a painting, that would be fair use. It doesn't matter if the data is encoded in it, if it is not used for extraction. Think of Andy warhol's Campbell Soup. Nobody is going to confuse the art for a can of soup and try to eat it. That's not being sold as a label for other soups. However, the original Campbell Soup data is absolutely encoded there.