3 ms·

You'd have a very hard time legally distinguishing this from "compressing a copyrighted work" though.

by jrm4 1y ago

vintermann 1y ago
To get out the original data from a compressed file, you just need to know the algorithm used (and for almost all formats, the file tells you). To get out the original data from an LLM, you need to supply... the original data. Or at least, a big chunk of it. The actually copyrightable chunk of it, arguably, since what a LLM can generate on its own is only its most predictable, unoriginal, generic chunks. Things it's seen a thousand times. Which may turn out to be an uncomfortably high % of most creative works.
flir 1y ago
I wouldn't, because the vast majority of the copyrighted works it was trained on are not present in the model, and the model can't be persuaded to spit them out at any reasonable level of fidelity (as the paper points out). The comparatively few that are should be fixed. If you want to argue that the act of training is in itself infringing, even if it doesn't result in a copy... well, I'd enjoy seeing you make that argument.
- jrm4 1y ago
  I'd be happy to take "reasonable level of fidelity" + yes, the act of training itself as infringing to a jury? I feel like it's going to look way more like "feeding into a copy machine" than "teaching a toddler" or whatever.
  - flir 1y ago
    "the act of training is in itself infringing, even if it doesn't result in a copy" "I'd be happy to take "reasonable level of fidelity" + yes, the act of training itself as infringing to a jury" They're not the same thing. At all. The comparatively few that are [extractable] should be fixed. I already said that. The vast majority of texts CANNOT BE EXTRACTED. Are they still infringing?
    - jrm4 1y ago
      Oh, I'm aware that they're not the same. I suppose I'm thinking more like a "real-life lawyer." At this stage, you can't just declare "infringing or not," thats the point of trials. What I'm saying is -- you make good points -- but I like my chances in front of a jury with my explanation against yours.
      - flir 1y ago
        This might be of interest, if you haven't already seen it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77vr00enzyo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77vr00enzyo Could be reversed by a higher court of course, but it seems like it establishes that pirating and training are two different "crimes". (Or three - see the bit about "infringing knock-offs").

You'd have a very hard time legally distinguishing this from "compressing a copyrighted work" though.

by jrm4 1y ago

You'd have a very hard time legally distinguishing this from "compressing a copyrighted work" though.

To get out the original data from a compressed file, you just need to know the algorithm used (and for almost all formats, the file tells you). To get out the original data from an LLM, you need to supply... the original data. Or at least, a big chunk of it. The actually copyrightable chunk of it, arguably, since what a LLM can generate on its own is only its most predictable, unoriginal, generic chunks. Things it's seen a thousand times. Which may turn out to be an uncomfortably high % of most creative works.

flir 1y ago

I wouldn't, because the vast majority of the copyrighted works it was trained on are not present in the model, and the model can't be persuaded to spit them out at any reasonable level of fidelity (as the paper points out). The comparatively few that are should be fixed. If you want to argue that the act of training is in itself infringing, even if it doesn't result in a copy... well, I'd enjoy seeing you make that argument.

jrm4 1y ago
I'd be happy to take "reasonable level of fidelity" + yes, the act of training itself as infringing to a jury? I feel like it's going to look way more like "feeding into a copy machine" than "teaching a toddler" or whatever.
- flir 1y ago
  "the act of training is in itself infringing, even if it doesn't result in a copy" "I'd be happy to take "reasonable level of fidelity" + yes, the act of training itself as infringing to a jury" They're not the same thing. At all. The comparatively few that are [extractable] should be fixed. I already said that. The vast majority of texts CANNOT BE EXTRACTED. Are they still infringing?
  - jrm4 1y ago
    Oh, I'm aware that they're not the same. I suppose I'm thinking more like a "real-life lawyer." At this stage, you can't just declare "infringing or not," thats the point of trials. What I'm saying is -- you make good points -- but I like my chances in front of a jury with my explanation against yours.
    - flir 1y ago
      This might be of interest, if you haven't already seen it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77vr00enzyo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77vr00enzyo Could be reversed by a higher court of course, but it seems like it establishes that pirating and training are two different "crimes". (Or three - see the bit about "infringing knock-offs").