5 ms·

Clever, but the law is not a machine or an algorithm. Intent matters. Training an LLM with the intent of contravening an NDA is just plain <intent to contraven

Clever, but the law is not a machine or an algorithm. Intent matters. Training an LLM with the intent of contravening an NDA is just plain <intent to contravene an NDA>. Everyone would still get sued anyway.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jeffreygoesto 2y ago
But then training a commercial model is done with the intent to not pay the original authors, how is that different?
- kdnvk 2y ago
  It’s not done with the intent to infringe copyright.
  - binkethy 2y ago
    It would appear that it explicitly IS done with this intent. We are told that an LLM is a living being that merely learns and then creates, but yet we are aware that its outputs regurgitate combinations of uta inputs.
- repeekad 2y ago
  > done with the intent to not pay the original authors no one building this software wants to “steal from creators” and the legal precedent for using copyrighted works for the purpose of training is clear with the NYT case against open AI It’s why things like the recent deal with Reddit to train on their data (which Reddit owns and users give up when using the platform) are becoming so important, same with Twitter/X
  - kaoD 2y ago
    > no one building this software wants to “steal from creators” > It’s why things like the recent deal[s ...] are becoming so important Sorry but I don't follow. Is it one or the other? If they didn't want to steal from the original authors, why do they not-steal Reddit now? What happens with the smaller creators that are not Reddit? When is OpenAI meeting with me to discuss compensation? To me your post felt something like "I'm not robbing you, Small State Without Defense that I just invaded, I just want to have your petroleum, but I'm paying Big State for theirs cause they can kick my ass". Aren't the recent deals actually implying that everything so far has actually been done with the intent of not compensating their source data creators? If that was not the case, they wouldn't need any deals now, they'd just continue happily doing whatever they've been doing which is oh so clearly lawful. What did I miss?
    - repeekad 2y ago
      The law is slow and is always playing catch up in terms of prosecution, it’s not clear today because this kind of copyright has never been an issue before. Usually it’s just outright stealing content that was protected, no one ever imagined “training” to be a protected use case, humans “train” on copyrighted works all the time, ideally copyrighted works they purchased for said purpose… the same will start to apply for AI, you have to have rights to the data for that purpose, hence these deals getting made. In the meantime it’s ask for forgiveness not permission, and companies like Google (less openAI) are ready to go with data governance that lets them remove copyright requested data and keep the rest of the model working fine Let’s also be clear that making deals with Reddit isn’t stealing from creators, it’s not a platform where you own what you type in, same on here this is all public domain with no assumed rights to the text. If you write a book and openAI trains on it and starts telling it to kids at bed time, you 100% will have a legal claim in the future, but the companies already have protections in place to prevent exactly that. For example if you own your website you can request the data not be crawled, but ultimately if your text is publicly available anyone is allowed to read it, and the question it is anyone allowed to train AI on it is an open question that companies are trying to get ahead on.
      - kaoD 2y ago
- mpweiher 2y ago
  Chutzpah. And that the companies doing it are multi-billion dollar companies who can afford the finest legal representation money can buy. Whether the brazenness with which they are doing this will work out for them is currently playing out in the courts.
bazoom42 2y ago
It is a classic geek fallacy to think you can hack the law with logic tricks.
- andyjohnson0 2y ago
  Indeed it is. Obligatory xkcd - https://xkcd.com/1494/ https://xkcd.com/1494/

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jeffreygoesto 2y ago

But then training a commercial model is done with the intent to not pay the original authors, how is that different?

kdnvk 2y ago
It’s not done with the intent to infringe copyright.
- binkethy 2y ago
  It would appear that it explicitly IS done with this intent. We are told that an LLM is a living being that merely learns and then creates, but yet we are aware that its outputs regurgitate combinations of uta inputs.
repeekad 2y ago
> done with the intent to not pay the original authors no one building this software wants to “steal from creators” and the legal precedent for using copyrighted works for the purpose of training is clear with the NYT case against open AI It’s why things like the recent deal with Reddit to train on their data (which Reddit owns and users give up when using the platform) are becoming so important, same with Twitter/X
- kaoD 2y ago
  > no one building this software wants to “steal from creators” > It’s why things like the recent deal[s ...] are becoming so important Sorry but I don't follow. Is it one or the other? If they didn't want to steal from the original authors, why do they not-steal Reddit now? What happens with the smaller creators that are not Reddit? When is OpenAI meeting with me to discuss compensation? To me your post felt something like "I'm not robbing you, Small State Without Defense that I just invaded, I just want to have your petroleum, but I'm paying Big State for theirs cause they can kick my ass". Aren't the recent deals actually implying that everything so far has actually been done with the intent of not compensating their source data creators? If that was not the case, they wouldn't need any deals now, they'd just continue happily doing whatever they've been doing which is oh so clearly lawful. What did I miss?
  - repeekad 2y ago
    The law is slow and is always playing catch up in terms of prosecution, it’s not clear today because this kind of copyright has never been an issue before. Usually it’s just outright stealing content that was protected, no one ever imagined “training” to be a protected use case, humans “train” on copyrighted works all the time, ideally copyrighted works they purchased for said purpose… the same will start to apply for AI, you have to have rights to the data for that purpose, hence these deals getting made. In the meantime it’s ask for forgiveness not permission, and companies like Google (less openAI) are ready to go with data governance that lets them remove copyright requested data and keep the rest of the model working fine Let’s also be clear that making deals with Reddit isn’t stealing from creators, it’s not a platform where you own what you type in, same on here this is all public domain with no assumed rights to the text. If you write a book and openAI trains on it and starts telling it to kids at bed time, you 100% will have a legal claim in the future, but the companies already have protections in place to prevent exactly that. For example if you own your website you can request the data not be crawled, but ultimately if your text is publicly available anyone is allowed to read it, and the question it is anyone allowed to train AI on it is an open question that companies are trying to get ahead on.
    - kaoD 2y ago
mpweiher 2y ago
Chutzpah. And that the companies doing it are multi-billion dollar companies who can afford the finest legal representation money can buy. Whether the brazenness with which they are doing this will work out for them is currently playing out in the courts.

bazoom42 2y ago

It is a classic geek fallacy to think you can hack the law with logic tricks.

andyjohnson0 2y ago
Indeed it is. Obligatory xkcd - https://xkcd.com/1494/ https://xkcd.com/1494/