4 ms·

This isn't stealing, you are just training a model on references which isn't a copyright infringement.

by h4kor 3y ago

JustFinishedBSG 3y ago
I'm glad this is a somewhat common opinion. The hypocrisy of these companies arguing on one hand that copying every single copyrighted material ever is fair use but on the other hand trying to enforce crazy limitations on their model is mindblowing.
- makomk 3y ago
  It's low effort, talking point nonsense. The whole reason this is interesting is that it allows the recovery of non-public information that was never released at all - about the closest analogy I can come up with is if it was somehow possible to reverse engineer part of an author's notes from their published work, though that's a very imperfect analogy. In order to tie this in to a pre-existing talking point about LLMs being bad, the current top comment has to basically completely ignore all of the reasons why this is interesting and surprising and considered an attack in infosec terms - indeed, not really engage with what it's doing at all.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    I agree with you, but I think the blame lies not with the commenters, but with the paper authors for inviting the comparison by choosing to use the loaded word "stealing" in their title.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but the paper is about recovering the unknown hidden dimension of black box LLMs, not copyright. Personally, it’s a relief to hear "stealing" being used in ML to describe something other than copyright infringement. It would be ironic if we Orwell’d our way out of the current mess by using the word in absurd ways. But realistically the title is just marketing. One depressing truth about science that every researcher has to face: make your work sound interesting, or else you won’t be able to continue your work due to lack of funding.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rob74 3y ago
This is quite literally "picking the LLM's brain"

This isn't stealing, you are just training a model on references which isn't a copyright infringement.

by h4kor 3y ago

This isn't stealing, you are just training a model on references which isn't a copyright infringement.

I'm glad this is a somewhat common opinion. The hypocrisy of these companies arguing on one hand that copying every single copyrighted material ever is fair use but on the other hand trying to enforce crazy limitations on their model is mindblowing.

makomk 3y ago
It's low effort, talking point nonsense. The whole reason this is interesting is that it allows the recovery of non-public information that was never released at all - about the closest analogy I can come up with is if it was somehow possible to reverse engineer part of an author's notes from their published work, though that's a very imperfect analogy. In order to tie this in to a pre-existing talking point about LLMs being bad, the current top comment has to basically completely ignore all of the reasons why this is interesting and surprising and considered an attack in infosec terms - indeed, not really engage with what it's doing at all.
- coldpie 3y ago
  I agree with you, but I think the blame lies not with the commenters, but with the paper authors for inviting the comparison by choosing to use the loaded word "stealing" in their title.

sillysaurusx 3y ago

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but the paper is about recovering the unknown hidden dimension of black box LLMs, not copyright. Personally, it’s a relief to hear "stealing" being used in ML to describe something other than copyright infringement. It would be ironic if we Orwell’d our way out of the current mess by using the word in absurd ways. But realistically the title is just marketing. One depressing truth about science that every researcher has to face: make your work sound interesting, or else you won’t be able to continue your work due to lack of funding.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rob74 3y ago

This is quite literally "picking the LLM's brain"