4 ms·

This is nothing but performative clickbait by the Verge. It is classified as fair use, the term is transformative use, where those using it are training models

This is nothing but performative clickbait by the Verge. It is classified as fair use, the term is transformative use, where those using it are training models (their intention) if anyone wishes to Google it. The end.

pdonis 2y ago
> the term is transformative use Transformative use is not automatically fair use. It is just a factor to be considered in judging whether a use is fair use. [1] (I would argue that AI outputs are not transformative uses anyway, since their point is not to add anything original but to provide a cheaper way of generating equivalent content.) Two other factors that seem highly relevant to the case of training AI models on the entire web are the third and fourth factors described on the US Copyright Office site I linked to. Training AI models on the entire web seems to be at the "least likely to be judged fair use" end of the spectrum for both of those factors: they use the entire content, and the whole point of the unlicensed use is to harm the existing or future market for the original copyrighted work. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  My point specifically speaks to training it. Copyright is only concerned with the supposed copy in question, which would be the model. Your interpretation is an extreme stretch under both those last two criteria. At an abstract level the information issued to help the AI model obtain a model of the world. This is transformative use. On a technical level the data is merely used to adjust parameter weightings, again transformative use. There is no corpus of copyright work stored in the model, merely the probabilistic model for that information, this is transformed use. You will have an extremely tough time trying to find a neutral AI expert who would give a definition that in anyway says the whole point of a multi-billion parameter AI model is to harm the existing market of original copyright as this is not true. Can it be used for that purpose, yes. But is it the purpose, nearly always no.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > My point specifically speaks to training it. The training part by itself is irrelevant to copyright since nothing is published. But of course nobody just lets trained LLMs sit in private; they are used to produce output, and the output is published so it has to meet the requirements of copyright law. > the information issued to help the AI model obtain a model of the world No, it isn't. LLMs don't have a model of the world. They have a model of words and word frequencies. That's it. That's all they get from their training data. > You will have an extremely tough time trying to find a neutral AI expert who would give a definition that in anyway says the whole point of a multi-billion parameter AI model is to harm the existing market of original copyright as this is not true. Sorry, not buying it. The way Microsoft expects to make money with their AI is by having it replace humans at generating content. The reason for training the AI on existing copyrighted content is so that the AI can generate content that can replace the original copyrighted content. Sure, Microsoft itself might not be doing that, but the customers who buy their AI are.
    - KoolKat23 2y ago
      -Its specifically relevant as it's what the article is talking about. Of course the output can be used to produce copyrighted materials but this relies on the user inputting specific variables. Much like someone rewriting a copyright work in word, this is just way easier to do but ease of copying is not covered by copyright law. -LLM's do indeed have a model of the world. They are no longer regression models that simply have a model of words and frequencies (although I'd argue this is still transformative use), worth checking out just how powerful GPT's are and how they work. -That argument would imply any new novel method that can replace a copyright method would be infringing. Ideally there should be multiple ways to do something and the AI would produce it's own median/mean way based on its learnings. Yes I agree the customers can, but that is not what Hassabis is defending.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

pdonis 2y ago

> the term is transformative use Transformative use is not automatically fair use. It is just a factor to be considered in judging whether a use is fair use. [1] (I would argue that AI outputs are not transformative uses anyway, since their point is not to add anything original but to provide a cheaper way of generating equivalent content.) Two other factors that seem highly relevant to the case of training AI models on the entire web are the third and fourth factors described on the US Copyright Office site I linked to. Training AI models on the entire web seems to be at the "least likely to be judged fair use" end of the spectrum for both of those factors: they use the entire content, and the whole point of the unlicensed use is to harm the existing or future market for the original copyrighted work. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/

KoolKat23 2y ago
My point specifically speaks to training it. Copyright is only concerned with the supposed copy in question, which would be the model. Your interpretation is an extreme stretch under both those last two criteria. At an abstract level the information issued to help the AI model obtain a model of the world. This is transformative use. On a technical level the data is merely used to adjust parameter weightings, again transformative use. There is no corpus of copyright work stored in the model, merely the probabilistic model for that information, this is transformed use. You will have an extremely tough time trying to find a neutral AI expert who would give a definition that in anyway says the whole point of a multi-billion parameter AI model is to harm the existing market of original copyright as this is not true. Can it be used for that purpose, yes. But is it the purpose, nearly always no.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > My point specifically speaks to training it. The training part by itself is irrelevant to copyright since nothing is published. But of course nobody just lets trained LLMs sit in private; they are used to produce output, and the output is published so it has to meet the requirements of copyright law. > the information issued to help the AI model obtain a model of the world No, it isn't. LLMs don't have a model of the world. They have a model of words and word frequencies. That's it. That's all they get from their training data. > You will have an extremely tough time trying to find a neutral AI expert who would give a definition that in anyway says the whole point of a multi-billion parameter AI model is to harm the existing market of original copyright as this is not true. Sorry, not buying it. The way Microsoft expects to make money with their AI is by having it replace humans at generating content. The reason for training the AI on existing copyrighted content is so that the AI can generate content that can replace the original copyrighted content. Sure, Microsoft itself might not be doing that, but the customers who buy their AI are.
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    -Its specifically relevant as it's what the article is talking about. Of course the output can be used to produce copyrighted materials but this relies on the user inputting specific variables. Much like someone rewriting a copyright work in word, this is just way easier to do but ease of copying is not covered by copyright law. -LLM's do indeed have a model of the world. They are no longer regression models that simply have a model of words and frequencies (although I'd argue this is still transformative use), worth checking out just how powerful GPT's are and how they work. -That argument would imply any new novel method that can replace a copyright method would be infringing. Ideally there should be multiple ways to do something and the AI would produce it's own median/mean way based on its learnings. Yes I agree the customers can, but that is not what Hassabis is defending.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]