3 ms·

I don't get it. Like, it's one thing if a fact-collecting business like the NYTimes doesn't want its stories to train an MML. I think under current law they d

I don't get it. Like, it's one thing if a fact-collecting business like the NYTimes doesn't want its stories to train an MML. I think under current law they don't have much of a case, because facts aren't copyrightable, but there's a reasonable argument that the law should be updated somehow in light of technological change. But the work produced by all StackExchange users is explicitly released under a CC BY-SA license. The whole point is to collect and publish facts/ideas/understanding for anyone to see and use for any purpose, including running a business. Yes, the "SA" (share alike) part means if you want to use and modify the words then you need to release them under license that is at least as permissive, but LLMs aren't using the words; they are clearly digesting the facts and expressing them in their own words. And, unlike the NYTimes, there is no issue of "couldn't new tech undermine society's current method of economically incentivizing fact-collection?". The StackExchange users are not being paid, and the fact that the license is not NC (non-commercial) explicitly means that using their hard work to make money is allowed (and encouraged!).

trueismywork 2y ago
It's not clear whether LLM actions are derivative works or not. The only way they would not he derivative works is if there's specific logic in the implementation to check for all copyrighted works used in training and prevent an infringing output from such a work.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  There doesn't have to be specific logic.
progval 2y ago
> Yes, the "SA" (share alike) part means if you want to use and modify the words then you need to release them under license that is at least as permissive, but LLMs aren't using the words; they are clearly digesting the facts and expressing them in their own words The CC BY-SA text <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en> says nothing about the words. The words "word" and "words" do not even appear in the legal text. What it says, however, is: > In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a) , if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply. > 1. The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License. > 2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share Adapted Material. where "Adapted Material" is defined as: > material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image. So if you want to argue that LLMs don't have to follow the SA clause, then you have to argue either that: 1. LLMs aren't an arrangement or transformation of their input, or 2. the license doesn't apply at all, eg. because it's fair use in whatever jurisdiction they fall under. OpenAI is using argument 2 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780199>.
- anileated 2y ago
  LLMs do not operate on ideas, they do not understand things. They operate on tokens which are phonemes, words or phrases. Think of it as a fancy autocomplete.
  - jessriedel 2y ago
    The ability for a person to freely use facts/concepts/ideas learned from a copyrighted source does not require the person to "understand" them. (How on Earth would a court ever determine that?)
    - anileated 2y ago
      It’s a legal thing. Is an LLM a person?
      - jessriedel 2y ago
        I don’t understand what you’re arguing
        anileated 2y ago
        I asked a question. What are you arguing?
- jessriedel 2y ago
  I'm using "words" as an informal summary of the large legal concept of what can be copyrighted, and "facts/concepts/ideas" for what cannot be. So it's not quite a fair use argument (which someone uses the words for certain protected purposes like parody), and I do not think OpenAI is making a fair use argument (although I'd welcome links to the contrary). In other words, it has nothing to do with your or anyone else's interpretation of what the CC license claims to protect ("an arrangement or transformation"), and only relies on what rights they are legally allowed to assert.
dongobread 2y ago
Legality aside, I think the "payment" people get from posting free knowledge on the Internet is the human connection, and the satisfaction of knowing that other people are reading and appreciating it directly. Injecting an LLM middleman between your post and the end user changes this dynamic quite a bit - without the human component, the feeling is that you're just doing unpaid labor for a profit-oriented company (OpenAI).
- jessriedel 2y ago
  Sure, that's fine as a reason for those people to not contribute in the future. They are free to do as they please.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
> I don't get it. It's not about legality, it's that sites like SO and Reddit have turned a corner and are no longer sites or businesses that people want to support. The contract of user generated content has been disrupted, we'd have happily given them content to profit from forever if they didn't turn shitty. And now people are lashing out even if it's futile because the content has already been sold. These sites failed a generational marshmallow test, taking short term profit at the expense of souring people on the idea of providing free content going forward.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  It's fine if they don't want to support them going forward. The question is whether users have any reason to claim that they have been harmed, and I'm arguing that they don't.
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    One can decide they don't like the site anymore because they changed the color of the logo. There can be any subjective reason, right? No one has to justify being against or for the site's recent decisions.

trueismywork 2y ago

It's not clear whether LLM actions are derivative works or not. The only way they would not he derivative works is if there's specific logic in the implementation to check for all copyrighted works used in training and prevent an infringing output from such a work.

jessriedel 2y ago
There doesn't have to be specific logic.

progval 2y ago

> Yes, the "SA" (share alike) part means if you want to use and modify the words then you need to release them under license that is at least as permissive, but LLMs aren't using the words; they are clearly digesting the facts and expressing them in their own words The CC BY-SA text <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en> says nothing about the words. The words "word" and "words" do not even appear in the legal text. What it says, however, is: > In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a) , if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply. > 1. The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License. > 2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share Adapted Material. where "Adapted Material" is defined as: > material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image. So if you want to argue that LLMs don't have to follow the SA clause, then you have to argue either that: 1. LLMs aren't an arrangement or transformation of their input, or 2. the license doesn't apply at all, eg. because it's fair use in whatever jurisdiction they fall under. OpenAI is using argument 2 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37780199>.

anileated 2y ago
LLMs do not operate on ideas, they do not understand things. They operate on tokens which are phonemes, words or phrases. Think of it as a fancy autocomplete.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  The ability for a person to freely use facts/concepts/ideas learned from a copyrighted source does not require the person to "understand" them. (How on Earth would a court ever determine that?)
  - anileated 2y ago
    It’s a legal thing. Is an LLM a person?
    - jessriedel 2y ago
      I don’t understand what you’re arguing
      - anileated 2y ago
        I asked a question. What are you arguing?
jessriedel 2y ago
I'm using "words" as an informal summary of the large legal concept of what can be copyrighted, and "facts/concepts/ideas" for what cannot be. So it's not quite a fair use argument (which someone uses the words for certain protected purposes like parody), and I do not think OpenAI is making a fair use argument (although I'd welcome links to the contrary). In other words, it has nothing to do with your or anyone else's interpretation of what the CC license claims to protect ("an arrangement or transformation"), and only relies on what rights they are legally allowed to assert.

dongobread 2y ago

Legality aside, I think the "payment" people get from posting free knowledge on the Internet is the human connection, and the satisfaction of knowing that other people are reading and appreciating it directly. Injecting an LLM middleman between your post and the end user changes this dynamic quite a bit - without the human component, the feeling is that you're just doing unpaid labor for a profit-oriented company (OpenAI).

jessriedel 2y ago
Sure, that's fine as a reason for those people to not contribute in the future. They are free to do as they please.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

> I don't get it. It's not about legality, it's that sites like SO and Reddit have turned a corner and are no longer sites or businesses that people want to support. The contract of user generated content has been disrupted, we'd have happily given them content to profit from forever if they didn't turn shitty. And now people are lashing out even if it's futile because the content has already been sold. These sites failed a generational marshmallow test, taking short term profit at the expense of souring people on the idea of providing free content going forward.

jessriedel 2y ago
It's fine if they don't want to support them going forward. The question is whether users have any reason to claim that they have been harmed, and I'm arguing that they don't.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  One can decide they don't like the site anymore because they changed the color of the logo. There can be any subjective reason, right? No one has to justify being against or for the site's recent decisions.