3 ms·

You really don't see the difference between Google indexing the content of third parties and directly hosting/distributing the content itself?

by abtinf 1y ago

Zambyte 1y ago
Where are they putting any blame on Google here?
- abtinf 1y ago
  Where did I say they were?
  - Zambyte 1y ago
    When you juxtaposed Google indexing with third parties hosting the content...?
imgabe 1y ago
Hosting model weights is not hosting / distributing the content.
- abtinf 1y ago
  Of course it is. It's just a form of compression. If I train an autoencoder on an image, and distribute the weights, that would obviously be the same as distributing the content. Just because the content is commingled with lots of other content doesn't make it disappear. Besides, where did the sections of text from the input works that show up in the output text come from? Divine inspiration? God whispering to the machine?
  - imgabe 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - abtinf 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - imgabe 1y ago
        No, the second point does not concede the argument. You were talking about the model output infringing the copyright, the second point is talking about the model input infringing the copyright, e.g. if they made unauthorized copies in the process of gathering data to train the model such as by pirating the content. That is unrelated to whether the model output is infringing. You don't seem to be in a very good position to judge what is and is not obtuse.
    - bakugo 1y ago
      > Have you ever repeated a line from your favorite movie or TV show? Memorized a poem? Guess the rights holders better sue you for stealing their content by encoding it in your wetware neural network. I see this absolute non-argument regurgitated ad infinitum in every single discussion on this topic, and at this point I can't help but wonder: doesn't it say more about the person who says it than anything else? Do you really consider your own human speech no different than that of a computer algorithm doing a bunch of matrix operations and outputting numbers that then get turned into text? Do you truly believe ChatGPT deserves the same rights to freedom of speech as you do?
      - imgabe 1y ago
        Who said anything about freedom of speech? Nobody is claiming the LLM has free speech rights, which don't even apply to infringing copyright anyway. Freedom of speech doesn't give me the right to make copies of copyrighted works. The question is whether the model weights constitute of copy of the work. I contend that they do not, or they did, than so do the analogous weights (reinforced neural pathways) in your brain, which is clearly absurd and is intended to demonstrate the absurdity of considering a probabilistic weighting that produces similar text to be a copy.
        1y ago
  - aschobel 1y ago
    Indeed! It is a form of massive lossy compression. > Llama 3 70B was trained on 15 trillion tokens That's roughly a 200x "compression" ration; compared to 3-7x for tradtional lossless text compression like bzip and friends. LLM don't just compress, they generalize. If they could only recite Harry Potter perfectly but couldn’t write code or explain math, they wouldn’t be very useful.
    - amlib 1y ago
      But LLMs cant write code nor explain math, they only plagiarize existing code and plagiarize existing explanations of math.
- Wowfunhappy 1y ago
  I would be inclined to agree except apparently 42% of the first Harry Potter book is encoded in the model weights...
nashashmi 1y ago
The way I see it is that an LLM took search results and outputted that info directly. Besides, I think that if an LLM was able to reproduce 42%, assuming that it is not continuous, I would say that is fair use.

You really don't see the difference between Google indexing the content of third parties and directly hosting/distributing the content itself?

by abtinf 1y ago

You really don't see the difference between Google indexing the content of third parties and directly hosting/distributing the content itself?

Zambyte 1y ago

Where are they putting any blame on Google here?

abtinf 1y ago
Where did I say they were?
- Zambyte 1y ago
  When you juxtaposed Google indexing with third parties hosting the content...?

imgabe 1y ago

Hosting model weights is not hosting / distributing the content.

abtinf 1y ago
Of course it is. It's just a form of compression. If I train an autoencoder on an image, and distribute the weights, that would obviously be the same as distributing the content. Just because the content is commingled with lots of other content doesn't make it disappear. Besides, where did the sections of text from the input works that show up in the output text come from? Divine inspiration? God whispering to the machine?
- imgabe 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - abtinf 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - imgabe 1y ago
      No, the second point does not concede the argument. You were talking about the model output infringing the copyright, the second point is talking about the model input infringing the copyright, e.g. if they made unauthorized copies in the process of gathering data to train the model such as by pirating the content. That is unrelated to whether the model output is infringing. You don't seem to be in a very good position to judge what is and is not obtuse.
  - bakugo 1y ago
    > Have you ever repeated a line from your favorite movie or TV show? Memorized a poem? Guess the rights holders better sue you for stealing their content by encoding it in your wetware neural network. I see this absolute non-argument regurgitated ad infinitum in every single discussion on this topic, and at this point I can't help but wonder: doesn't it say more about the person who says it than anything else? Do you really consider your own human speech no different than that of a computer algorithm doing a bunch of matrix operations and outputting numbers that then get turned into text? Do you truly believe ChatGPT deserves the same rights to freedom of speech as you do?
    - imgabe 1y ago
      Who said anything about freedom of speech? Nobody is claiming the LLM has free speech rights, which don't even apply to infringing copyright anyway. Freedom of speech doesn't give me the right to make copies of copyrighted works. The question is whether the model weights constitute of copy of the work. I contend that they do not, or they did, than so do the analogous weights (reinforced neural pathways) in your brain, which is clearly absurd and is intended to demonstrate the absurdity of considering a probabilistic weighting that produces similar text to be a copy.
      - 1y ago
- aschobel 1y ago
  Indeed! It is a form of massive lossy compression. > Llama 3 70B was trained on 15 trillion tokens That's roughly a 200x "compression" ration; compared to 3-7x for tradtional lossless text compression like bzip and friends. LLM don't just compress, they generalize. If they could only recite Harry Potter perfectly but couldn’t write code or explain math, they wouldn’t be very useful.
  - amlib 1y ago
    But LLMs cant write code nor explain math, they only plagiarize existing code and plagiarize existing explanations of math.
Wowfunhappy 1y ago
I would be inclined to agree except apparently 42% of the first Harry Potter book is encoded in the model weights...

nashashmi 1y ago

The way I see it is that an LLM took search results and outputted that info directly. Besides, I think that if an LLM was able to reproduce 42%, assuming that it is not continuous, I would say that is fair use.