3 ms·

Except they’re not storing copies of any of these. They’re storing how likely it is that something from this relates to something from that. Back when Starship

Except they’re not storing copies of any of these. They’re storing how likely it is that something from this relates to something from that. Back when Starship Titanic came out, the website posted a copy of the associated novel, with the words in alphabetical order for convenience [1]. No copyright court would recognize this as a copy of the book, just as a dictionary is not a copy of any other work. An observation about a work (how many words it has, which words, how frequently they’re associated with other words, who wrote them, when etc. ) is not the same thing as a copy of the work. I get that there’s an ethical question here, but I really don’t agree that there’s a copyright question.

yencabulator 2y ago
> Except they’re not storing copies of any of these. How do you think gtp(n+1) is trained? We literally have people in the AI field admitting part of their training dataset is a pile of torrented books.
still_grokking 2y ago
> Except they’re not storing copies of any of these. Copyright isn't about storing copies. It's about making copies. How do you think the AI companies extract all the statistical info about some content? Spoiler: They copy that copyright protected work onto their machines where they do the data analysis. At this point copyright was already violated. They usually never had the right to make copies for the purpose to extract statistics about it in the first place. "Because it's on the internet" doesn't give you such a license. The current LLM "AI" only exists on the grounds of massive copyright volitions. It's the exact same situation as with Napster in the past. No mater how often MS and friends hallucinate something about "fair use", it is not, and the only realistic legal outcome in the long run will be the same as for Napster: AI training is piracy. On a global "internet scale". (The only sad thing is likely nobody of the directly involved will end up in jail, like they do e.g. with people sharing torrents).

yencabulator 2y ago

> Except they’re not storing copies of any of these. How do you think gtp(n+1) is trained? We literally have people in the AI field admitting part of their training dataset is a pile of torrented books.

still_grokking 2y ago

> Except they’re not storing copies of any of these. Copyright isn't about storing copies. It's about making copies. How do you think the AI companies extract all the statistical info about some content? Spoiler: They copy that copyright protected work onto their machines where they do the data analysis. At this point copyright was already violated. They usually never had the right to make copies for the purpose to extract statistics about it in the first place. "Because it's on the internet" doesn't give you such a license. The current LLM "AI" only exists on the grounds of massive copyright volitions. It's the exact same situation as with Napster in the past. No mater how often MS and friends hallucinate something about "fair use", it is not, and the only realistic legal outcome in the long run will be the same as for Napster: AI training is piracy. On a global "internet scale". (The only sad thing is likely nobody of the directly involved will end up in jail, like they do e.g. with people sharing torrents).