3 ms·

You see an LLM as something that copies stuff. I don't. A judge will have to decide which it is. So far, they're leaning to "it's not a copy machine" Edit: a

by berkes 3y ago

You see an LLM as something that copies stuff. I don't. A judge will have to decide which it is. So far, they're leaning to "it's not a copy machine" Edit: and yes. I find it immoral when an author has a say in how I use the book after buying it. Whether I whipe my ass with the paper, or display it in a shrine is non of his business. I bought the carrier, it is mine. And under copyright law (EU), I'm free to sell my copy to a second hand bookstore, and that bookstore is free to sell it and make a profit. I understand the nuances of digital carries that can duplicate their contained knowledge much easier than a paper book can, but I find it immoral that the ebook I buy, cannot be read by my wife on her ereader without her buying it as well.

palata 3y ago
> You see an LLM as something that copies stuff. I see an LLM as a machine that takes an input and automatically gives an output. If that input is copyrighted, and the output is essentially a translation of that input, then it is a problem. BTW using a camera to take a photo of your code, and then use text recognition to render it (with potential mistakes), and then use an algorithm to correct the mistakes, all that is not exactly "something that copies stuff": you will agree that there is a lot happening. Still you would say that it breaches the copyright "because it is exactly the same text". The thing is, "copyright" is not defined as "exactly the same text" (otherwise you could rename a few variables and be done with it). > I find it immoral when an author has a say in how I use the book after buying it. So you find it immoral for an author to sue you because you bought the book, copied it and sold cheaper copies on Amazon? Pretty sure you don't. You can't just ignore all the nuances that don't support your argument... I don't like DRMs either, but it does not mean that the concept of copyright is always wrong.

by berkes 3y ago

palata 3y ago

> You see an LLM as something that copies stuff. I see an LLM as a machine that takes an input and automatically gives an output. If that input is copyrighted, and the output is essentially a translation of that input, then it is a problem. BTW using a camera to take a photo of your code, and then use text recognition to render it (with potential mistakes), and then use an algorithm to correct the mistakes, all that is not exactly "something that copies stuff": you will agree that there is a lot happening. Still you would say that it breaches the copyright "because it is exactly the same text". The thing is, "copyright" is not defined as "exactly the same text" (otherwise you could rename a few variables and be done with it). > I find it immoral when an author has a say in how I use the book after buying it. So you find it immoral for an author to sue you because you bought the book, copied it and sold cheaper copies on Amazon? Pretty sure you don't. You can't just ignore all the nuances that don't support your argument... I don't like DRMs either, but it does not mean that the concept of copyright is always wrong.