6 ms·

Do they claim that none of their data came from copyrighted sources / is copyrighted?

by DiggyJohnson 3y ago

numpad0 3y ago
Why do everyone assume "open source" imply legality? (/s)
- fsckboy 3y ago
  humans have the innate hunter-gatherer sense that generosity and sharing are good for us, and selfishness is bad. And that ethical should be legal and unethical should not be. Open source is generous sharing, and ethical. Start to nibble away at those ideals and at what point do you slip into unethical? IMDB was a crowd-sourced database put together by a wide community pitching in small efforts which one guy was maintaining like an FAQ. Then the guy maintaining it said, "It's worth money, I own it, screw all of you." How would people react if this happened to wikipedia? But wikipedia is safe because it's a non-profit... you know, like OpenAI, right?
jsheard 3y ago
"Open source" implies that, no? A definition of open source which includes blatantly pirated material on the condition that the people who collated and released the pirated material did so for free is really stretching it past breaking point. By that standard everything on The Pirate Bay is open source.
seanhunter 3y ago
The claim (which I don't personally agree with, but I'm trying to represent here in good faith) is that although the data is copyright, training models constitutes "fair use" under US copyright law and therefore you're entitled to use copyright material for this. Fair to say that whether or not this is correct is pretty important to all the outstanding court cases on this matter.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- retrac 3y ago
  I think there is actually a good argument that an AI model is transformative, and that training a model is therefore not infringing of the copyright. (An analogy: if you rolled dice to select words randomly from the Lord of the Rings and rearranged them into a poem, it's not infringing the Lord of the Rings even if in a sense, every word was taken from that book.) But you still have to get your hands on the copyrighted data legally. It might be legal to scan every book an institution owns, and train off it, so long as those scans are not distributed. But it is probably not legal to scrape copyrighted content off torrents - creating the copy to train with is infringing, even if the model's final product maybe isn't.
  - seanhunter 3y ago
    Yes agreed, and transformative use itself also has limitations. You don't have carte blanche to use something just because you think it's transformative, for example the Lynn Goldsmith vs Andy Warhol Foundation case over the "Orange Prince" work. https://copyrightalliance.org/warhol-decision-reins-transformative-fair-use/ https://copyrightalliance.org/warhol-decision-reins-transfor...
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    while there is a good argument that AI produces transformative outputs, it's refuted when the models are shown to regurgitate literal text, which they have. Then it just starts to look like a neural memorization agent, compressed storage algorithm, etc.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Definitely open to the idea, that couldn’t be the whole argument. I mean, my brain can output some quotes, but I’m not a compressed storage algorithm. Or at least I hope I’m not.
    - zettabomb 3y ago
qwertox 3y ago
There's odd stuff in there. I just randomly downloaded a file, https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/ThoseBooks/Puzzles.tar https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/ThoseBooks/Puzzles.tar -- 20-Jan-2023 14:54 -- 6M and it pretends to be a jigsaw puzzle, but is actually eISBN 9781594868573 - The South Beach diet cookbook / Arthur Agatston

Do they claim that none of their data came from copyrighted sources / is copyrighted?

numpad0 3y ago

Why do everyone assume "open source" imply legality? (/s)

fsckboy 3y ago
humans have the innate hunter-gatherer sense that generosity and sharing are good for us, and selfishness is bad. And that ethical should be legal and unethical should not be. Open source is generous sharing, and ethical. Start to nibble away at those ideals and at what point do you slip into unethical? IMDB was a crowd-sourced database put together by a wide community pitching in small efforts which one guy was maintaining like an FAQ. Then the guy maintaining it said, "It's worth money, I own it, screw all of you." How would people react if this happened to wikipedia? But wikipedia is safe because it's a non-profit... you know, like OpenAI, right?

jsheard 3y ago

"Open source" implies that, no? A definition of open source which includes blatantly pirated material on the condition that the people who collated and released the pirated material did so for free is really stretching it past breaking point. By that standard everything on The Pirate Bay is open source.

seanhunter 3y ago

The claim (which I don't personally agree with, but I'm trying to represent here in good faith) is that although the data is copyright, training models constitutes "fair use" under US copyright law and therefore you're entitled to use copyright material for this. Fair to say that whether or not this is correct is pretty important to all the outstanding court cases on this matter.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
retrac 3y ago
I think there is actually a good argument that an AI model is transformative, and that training a model is therefore not infringing of the copyright. (An analogy: if you rolled dice to select words randomly from the Lord of the Rings and rearranged them into a poem, it's not infringing the Lord of the Rings even if in a sense, every word was taken from that book.) But you still have to get your hands on the copyrighted data legally. It might be legal to scan every book an institution owns, and train off it, so long as those scans are not distributed. But it is probably not legal to scrape copyrighted content off torrents - creating the copy to train with is infringing, even if the model's final product maybe isn't.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  Yes agreed, and transformative use itself also has limitations. You don't have carte blanche to use something just because you think it's transformative, for example the Lynn Goldsmith vs Andy Warhol Foundation case over the "Orange Prince" work. https://copyrightalliance.org/warhol-decision-reins-transformative-fair-use/ https://copyrightalliance.org/warhol-decision-reins-transfor...
- fsckboy 3y ago
  while there is a good argument that AI produces transformative outputs, it's refuted when the models are shown to regurgitate literal text, which they have. Then it just starts to look like a neural memorization agent, compressed storage algorithm, etc.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Definitely open to the idea, that couldn’t be the whole argument. I mean, my brain can output some quotes, but I’m not a compressed storage algorithm. Or at least I hope I’m not.
  - zettabomb 3y ago

qwertox 3y ago

There's odd stuff in there. I just randomly downloaded a file, https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/ThoseBooks/Puzzles.tar https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/ThoseBooks/Puzzles.tar -- 20-Jan-2023 14:54 -- 6M and it pretends to be a jigsaw puzzle, but is actually eISBN 9781594868573 - The South Beach diet cookbook / Arthur Agatston