12 ms·

I think the main point of the article is that they had to do some serious prompt engineering to get the results they wanted. It probably means that with normal

I think the main point of the article is that they had to do some serious prompt engineering to get the results they wanted. It probably means that with normal usage it doesn't produce any quotes from copyrighted materials.

asadotzler 3y ago
normal usage doesn't come into play here. if the model contains verbatim text owned by the NYT, how that was demonstrated in immaterial to it's theft. You don't get to steal from me, lock up my propery inside you safe, and when I pop your safe (non-destructively) claim I'm cheating by showing the cops my shit inside your popped safe.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The model doesn’t contain verbatim text, the huge prompt might (tailored for each query), that’s the whole point of LLMs right?
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    Define 'contain' If I can reliably recite verbatim a 10 page short story then I 'contain' it even though you can't dissect my brain and find it. If a LLM can reliably and repeatably recite an article verbatim then it 'contains' it even if you can't run 'strings' on the weights and find it. Disagree? You might, but the court's opinion is what matters, and I think they'll go with the 'touch and feel' judgement not the 'bits and bytes' judgement.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Again, if you feed the article into the prompt over multiple queries, why would the model not regurgitate it? It doesn’t have to be in the model, you are basically giving the article to your chat session. The analogy holds, and I don’t think the court is going to be ignorant enough to fall for that trick.