3 ms·

> I hadn't realized that it was well settled that scraping from youtube isn't legitimate. How ironic that would be. Does that mean that google search results ar

by tivert 2y ago

> I hadn't realized that it was well settled that scraping from youtube isn't legitimate. How ironic that would be. Does that mean that google search results aren't legal? You get full images back from that and google makes money on those results. Scraping for LLMs should be illegitimate, and self-serving analogies to human learning should be rejected. Whatever precedent that allows for search should definitely not apply to LLMs, because LLMs have different characteristics: the traditional search is more like movie review, it borrows from the movie but in the process directs you to the creator's business (where he can profit); while the LLM is like a pirated copy of the movie, whose point to keep you away from the creator's business (so someone else can profit). At their core LLMs are exploitative in a way search is not. > Is there a real legal precedence that has set a clear line here? When circumstances change, the law can change to achieve a just result. Software engineers seem to like to mis-imagine the law like physics: unchanging, and if you can figure out some loophole to achieve something you get to do it forever. But that's wrong, and the law can and should change.

jmward01 2y ago
> and self-serving analogies to human learning should be rejected. Not sure how this is self-serving or a reference to human learning. This is a pretty emotional reply and it makes it hard to see the points you are trying to make. I think there is a discussion about the legitimacy of scraping in general that is ongoing, which is a lot of what I brought up in my post. Training using scraped information should be part of that discussion.
- tivert 2y ago
  > Not sure how this is self-serving or a reference to human learning. An argument I frequently see made to defend companies who take all kinds of people's content to build LLMs (which then compete with the people's whose stuff they took) is this: 1. People learn from seeing examples, and that's protected. 2. Machine/LLMs learn from the content (the trick being pulled is to equate human learning with machine learning). 3. Therefore OpenAI, Google, etc. should be able take everyone's stuff to build the tech they want to sell / I want to use / fulfills my nerd fantasies. It's self-serving because they don't care about the harm done to build the thing they want, so are trying to excuse that harm away. > This is a pretty emotional reply What's wrong with emotion?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
OgsyedIE 2y ago
From the point of view of the people doing the scraping, the law is pretty just already and gets ever closer to justice as it discards the various facets of the historically popular legal theory of egalitarian property rights.

by tivert 2y ago

jmward01 2y ago

> and self-serving analogies to human learning should be rejected. Not sure how this is self-serving or a reference to human learning. This is a pretty emotional reply and it makes it hard to see the points you are trying to make. I think there is a discussion about the legitimacy of scraping in general that is ongoing, which is a lot of what I brought up in my post. Training using scraped information should be part of that discussion.

tivert 2y ago
> Not sure how this is self-serving or a reference to human learning. An argument I frequently see made to defend companies who take all kinds of people's content to build LLMs (which then compete with the people's whose stuff they took) is this: 1. People learn from seeing examples, and that's protected. 2. Machine/LLMs learn from the content (the trick being pulled is to equate human learning with machine learning). 3. Therefore OpenAI, Google, etc. should be able take everyone's stuff to build the tech they want to sell / I want to use / fulfills my nerd fantasies. It's self-serving because they don't care about the harm done to build the thing they want, so are trying to excuse that harm away. > This is a pretty emotional reply What's wrong with emotion?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

OgsyedIE 2y ago

From the point of view of the people doing the scraping, the law is pretty just already and gets ever closer to justice as it discards the various facets of the historically popular legal theory of egalitarian property rights.