4 ms·

So if I memorized Harry Potter the physical encoding which definitely exists in my brain is a copyright violation?

by ninetyninenine 1y ago

teaearlgraycold 1y ago
I think humans get a special exception in cases like this
- otabdeveloper4 1y ago
  No they don't. Commercial intent is what is prosecuted in IP law.
shrewduser 1y ago
maybe if you re wrote it from memory.
lithiumii 1y ago
You are not selling or distributing copies of your brain.
harry8 1y ago
If you perform it from memory in public without paying royalties then yes, yes it is. Should it be? Different question.
dvt 1y ago
> the physical encoding which definitely exists in my brain is a copyright violation First of all, we don't really know how the brain works. I get that you're being a snarky physicalist, but there's plenty of substance dualists, panpsychsts, etc. out there. So, some might say, this is a reductive description of what happens in our brains. Second of all, yes, if you tried to publish Harry Potter (even if it was from memory), you would get in trouble for copyright violation.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Right but the physical encoding already exists in my brain or how can I reproduce it in the first place? We may not know how the encoding works but we do know that an encoding exists because a decoding is possible. My question is… is that in itself a violation of copyright? If not then as long as LLMs don’t make a publication it shouldn’t be a copyright violation right? Because we don’t understand how it’s encoded in LLMs either. It is literally the same concept.
  - bitmasher9 1y ago
    I don’t think the lawyers are going to buy arguments that compare LLMs with human biology like this.
  - Jaygles 1y ago
    To me the primary difference between the potential "copy" that exists in your brain and a potential "copy" that exists in the LLM, is that you can't make copies and distribute your brain to billions of people. If you compressed a copy of HP as a .rar, you couldn't read that as is, but you could press a button and get HP out of it. To distribute that .rar would clearly be a copyright violation. Likewise, you can't read whatever of HP exists in the LLM model directly, but you seemingly can press a bunch of buttons and get parts of it out. For some models, maybe you can get the entire thing. And I'm guessing you could train a model whose purpose is to output HP verbatim and get the book out of it as easily as de-compressing a .rar. So, the question in my mind is, how similar is distributing the LLM model, or giving access to it, to distributing a .rar of HP. There's likely a spectrum of answers depending on the LLM
    - ninetyninenine 1y ago
      > that exists in the LLM, is that you can't make copies and distribute your brain to billions of people. I can record myself reciting the full Harry Potter book then distribute it on YouTube. Could do the exact same thing with an LLM. The potential for distribution exists in both cases. Why is one illegal and the other not?
beowulfey 1y ago
Only if you charge someone to reproduce it for them
JKCalhoun 1y ago
The end of "Fahrenheit 451" set a horrible precedent. Damn you, Bradbury!

So if I memorized Harry Potter the physical encoding which definitely exists in my brain is a copyright violation?

teaearlgraycold 1y ago

I think humans get a special exception in cases like this

otabdeveloper4 1y ago
No they don't. Commercial intent is what is prosecuted in IP law.

shrewduser 1y ago

maybe if you re wrote it from memory.

lithiumii 1y ago

You are not selling or distributing copies of your brain.

harry8 1y ago

If you perform it from memory in public without paying royalties then yes, yes it is. Should it be? Different question.

dvt 1y ago

> the physical encoding which definitely exists in my brain is a copyright violation First of all, we don't really know how the brain works. I get that you're being a snarky physicalist, but there's plenty of substance dualists, panpsychsts, etc. out there. So, some might say, this is a reductive description of what happens in our brains. Second of all, yes, if you tried to publish Harry Potter (even if it was from memory), you would get in trouble for copyright violation.

ninetyninenine 1y ago
Right but the physical encoding already exists in my brain or how can I reproduce it in the first place? We may not know how the encoding works but we do know that an encoding exists because a decoding is possible. My question is… is that in itself a violation of copyright? If not then as long as LLMs don’t make a publication it shouldn’t be a copyright violation right? Because we don’t understand how it’s encoded in LLMs either. It is literally the same concept.
- bitmasher9 1y ago
  I don’t think the lawyers are going to buy arguments that compare LLMs with human biology like this.
- Jaygles 1y ago
  To me the primary difference between the potential "copy" that exists in your brain and a potential "copy" that exists in the LLM, is that you can't make copies and distribute your brain to billions of people. If you compressed a copy of HP as a .rar, you couldn't read that as is, but you could press a button and get HP out of it. To distribute that .rar would clearly be a copyright violation. Likewise, you can't read whatever of HP exists in the LLM model directly, but you seemingly can press a bunch of buttons and get parts of it out. For some models, maybe you can get the entire thing. And I'm guessing you could train a model whose purpose is to output HP verbatim and get the book out of it as easily as de-compressing a .rar. So, the question in my mind is, how similar is distributing the LLM model, or giving access to it, to distributing a .rar of HP. There's likely a spectrum of answers depending on the LLM
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    > that exists in the LLM, is that you can't make copies and distribute your brain to billions of people. I can record myself reciting the full Harry Potter book then distribute it on YouTube. Could do the exact same thing with an LLM. The potential for distribution exists in both cases. Why is one illegal and the other not?

beowulfey 1y ago

Only if you charge someone to reproduce it for them

JKCalhoun 1y ago

The end of "Fahrenheit 451" set a horrible precedent. Damn you, Bradbury!