3 ms·

If you need the logs, doesn't that prove the point that the AI is not a derrivative work? Like if you can't figure out which works were used to create the AI j

If you need the logs, doesn't that prove the point that the AI is not a derrivative work? Like if you can't figure out which works were used to create the AI just by looking, its hard to argue that they "copied" the work. Copyright is not a general prohibition on using the copyrighted work only the creativity contained within.

samsin 2y ago
Claiming that Meta distributed pirated works is still a copyright claim, but you're correct that it's seemingly irrelevant to the fair use argument (which the article acknowledges).
Earw0rm 2y ago
No. Because you can't tell by inspecting the weights, and it can be hard to tell AIUI if the capability to generate the output is present, but suppressed by a safety mechanism, or doesn't exist at all.
NBJack 2y ago
Define "figure out" and "looking" for a LLM, a bundle of pseudo-nerual pathways driven by parameters we number in the billions for sufficiently large models.
_Algernon_ 2y ago
I asked chatgpt about a design pattern the other day and it plagiarized a paragraph verbatim without attribution even from a textbook Im also reading (Design Patterns) It isn't difficult to show copyright infringement in these models. The assumption should be that copyright infringement has occured until proven otherwise. Just the fact that they are indiscriminately web scraping proves that. Just because it is publicly and (monetarily) freely available doesn't mean it isnt copyrighted.
- Crestwave 2y ago
  This is why the "AI learns from materials just like a human does so it's not copyright infringement" argument always bothered me. A person won't recite full pages of word-for-word copies [1] from their head when you ask them something. When I first tried Copilot, I asked it to write a simple algorithm like FizzBuzz and it ripped off a random repo verbatim, complete with Korean comments and typos. Image models will also happily generate near-identical [2] copies (usually with some added noise) of copyrighted images with the right prompt. [1] https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2020/12/20/lmmem/ https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2020/12/20/lmmem/ [2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/06/uh_oh_attackers_can_extract/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/06/uh_oh_attackers_can_e...
- bawolff 2y ago
  Copyright infringement and plagerism aren't the same thing. A human reproducing a patagraph word for word in an educational context would probably not be considered copyright infringement (although lack of attribution might be problematic). In the US anyways. The US is sonewhat unique as having very broad fair use when it comes to material used in an educational context, much broader than most other countries.
  - _Algernon_ 2y ago
    One of the factors going into determining fair use is whether the use is commercial. Another factor is the effect on the market of the original product. Non-attribution + commercial use + affecting the marketability of the original product (which is what LLMs do) seems unlikely to be considered fair use by any existing precedent. That being said IANAL.
Crestwave 2y ago
They have already proven that copyrighted data was used for training but got struck down in court. The reason why they're asking for the torrent logs is because Meta torrenting the pirated data means they probably seeded and thus distributed it, which has a much greater impact legally than just downloading.

samsin 2y ago

Claiming that Meta distributed pirated works is still a copyright claim, but you're correct that it's seemingly irrelevant to the fair use argument (which the article acknowledges).

Earw0rm 2y ago

No. Because you can't tell by inspecting the weights, and it can be hard to tell AIUI if the capability to generate the output is present, but suppressed by a safety mechanism, or doesn't exist at all.

NBJack 2y ago

Define "figure out" and "looking" for a LLM, a bundle of pseudo-nerual pathways driven by parameters we number in the billions for sufficiently large models.

_Algernon_ 2y ago

I asked chatgpt about a design pattern the other day and it plagiarized a paragraph verbatim without attribution even from a textbook Im also reading (Design Patterns) It isn't difficult to show copyright infringement in these models. The assumption should be that copyright infringement has occured until proven otherwise. Just the fact that they are indiscriminately web scraping proves that. Just because it is publicly and (monetarily) freely available doesn't mean it isnt copyrighted.

Crestwave 2y ago
This is why the "AI learns from materials just like a human does so it's not copyright infringement" argument always bothered me. A person won't recite full pages of word-for-word copies [1] from their head when you ask them something. When I first tried Copilot, I asked it to write a simple algorithm like FizzBuzz and it ripped off a random repo verbatim, complete with Korean comments and typos. Image models will also happily generate near-identical [2] copies (usually with some added noise) of copyrighted images with the right prompt. [1] https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2020/12/20/lmmem/ https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2020/12/20/lmmem/ [2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/06/uh_oh_attackers_can_extract/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/06/uh_oh_attackers_can_e...
bawolff 2y ago
Copyright infringement and plagerism aren't the same thing. A human reproducing a patagraph word for word in an educational context would probably not be considered copyright infringement (although lack of attribution might be problematic). In the US anyways. The US is sonewhat unique as having very broad fair use when it comes to material used in an educational context, much broader than most other countries.
- _Algernon_ 2y ago
  One of the factors going into determining fair use is whether the use is commercial. Another factor is the effect on the market of the original product. Non-attribution + commercial use + affecting the marketability of the original product (which is what LLMs do) seems unlikely to be considered fair use by any existing precedent. That being said IANAL.

Crestwave 2y ago

They have already proven that copyrighted data was used for training but got struck down in court. The reason why they're asking for the torrent logs is because Meta torrenting the pirated data means they probably seeded and thus distributed it, which has a much greater impact legally than just downloading.