2 ms·
The EU level problem isn't that LLMs are trained on your publicly scrapable reddit or HN posts since you're not getting paid for your contributions either way.
by Rinzler89 2y ago
The EU level problem isn't that LLMs are trained on your publicly scrapable reddit or HN posts since you're not getting paid for your contributions either way.
The way I understand it is, the laws are made to cover cases of LLMs being trained on work of authors and artists who normally make a living from the content they create such as articles, books, music, images, videos, etc. whose work is normally copyrighted but LLMs don't give a shit and can just scrape and "learn" your content, style and patterns and then regurgitate it with slight alterations without the original authors getting paid.
It's no secret that some LLMs have been trained on pirated books off libgen.
- stavros 2y agoSure, but this is about FB and Instagram posts, posts that Meta owns anyway (due to the ToS).
- kolinko 2y agoIn Europe at least, laws override ToS and other agreements. You can sign all kinds if things with your clients/users, but laws can render parts of these agreements void. In Poland we have a whole catalogue of voided agreement paragraphs, that gets updated regularly. It’s a safety mechanism against companies exploiting the legal system to push people into signing things that are considered unfavourable to them - https://uokik.gov.pl/niedozwolone-klauzule https://uokik.gov.pl/niedozwolone-klauzule
- stavros 2y agoI agree, but they weren't voided before this law. Meta wasn't doing anything illegal, since you had signed your rights over your content over to them. That's why I have a hard time accept any arguments of legality/copyright against this.
- kolinko 2y agoGovt can void it after the agreement was signed. That is because companies keep working around existing laws, and pushing clients to sign unfavorable deals. We’ve had banks for example that had bad terms (or trading platforms), and then government step in and make such terms void. The reasoning is that a consumer/user should expect fair treatment when agreeing to ToS, without spending money on legal advice before clicking “I agree”.
- stavros 2y agoThe conversation went like this: I asked why people are against AI training on their posts, some people said "because of copyright", I pointed out that Meta has a license from them to use the posts for anything, and now your post is "but the government can force them not to". Yes they can, but that wasn't the original question.
- kolinko 2y agoMeta, nor anyone else doesn’t have a license to do anything they wish according to EU law - we don’t have wildcard copyright assignments - you need to specify the fields in which a person grants the copyright. Exatly for the reason that when a new tech is invented, the original author may decide to not grant the copyright for that field, or grant it to someone else. That is, each legally binging copyright assignment needs an enumeration of fields, like radio, tv, streaming and so on, and when a new field appears the copyright belongs to the original author by default. And statements like “in all fields current and future” are not legally binding. There is no such thing as “people signed copyright to Meta so Meta can use it in whatever fashion”. You can read an exercept of Meta’s ToS here - these ToS do not allow them to train models based on the content people publish. https://www.quora.com/When-I-post-a-photo-on-Facebook-or-Instagram-do-I-lose-my-copyright https://www.quora.com/When-I-post-a-photo-on-Facebook-or-Ins...