4 ms·

> To call training illegal is similar to calling reading a book and remembering it illegal. A type of wishful thinking fallacy. In law scale matters. It's leg

> To call training illegal is similar to calling reading a book and remembering it illegal. A type of wishful thinking fallacy. In law scale matters. It's legal for you to possess a single joint. It's not legal to possess 400 tons of weed in a warehouse.

threethirtytwo 10mo ago
Er no. I’ve read and remember hundreds of books in my life time. It’s not any more illegal based off scale. The law doesn’t differentiate whether I remember one book or a hundred then there’s no difference for thousands or millions. No wishful thinking here.
- lelanthran 10mo ago
  > Er no. I’ve read and remember hundreds of books in my life time. It’s not any more illegal based off scale. I'm not sure you understood what you said, but superficially it appears that you are agreeing with me? Just because it's legal to read 100s of books does not make it legal to slurp up every single piece of produced content ever recorded. We're talking man many orders of magnitude in scale there, and you're the one who pointed out that scale :-/
  - threethirtytwo 10mo ago
    No I'm not agreeing with you. >Just because it's legal to read 100s of books does not make it legal to slurp up every single piece of produced content ever recorded. The law says you're perfectly in your legal right to slurp up every piece of content ever produced. >We're talking man many orders of magnitude in scale there, and you're the one who pointed out that scale :-/ I'm aware, and the law doesn't talk about scale.
- kelnos 10mo ago
  What is "scale" in this context? I think arguably 100 books over the span of decades is not "scale". But tens (hundreds?) of thousands of books over the span of a few weeks? That's definitely "scale".
  - threethirtytwo 10mo ago
    the law doesn't talk about scale, so either is perfectly legal. Memorizing a billion books vs memorizing one book. Same laws apply.
kalap_ur 10mo ago
It is not the scale that matters here, in your example, but intent. With 1 joint, you want to smoke yourself. With 400, you very possibly want to sell it to others. Scale in itself doesnt matter, scale matters only as to the extent it changes what your intention may be.
- threethirtytwo 10mo ago
  It’s clear nvidia and every single one of these big AI corps do not want their AIs to violate the law. The intent is clear as day here. Scale is only used for emergence, openAI found that training transformers on the entire internet would make is more then just a next token predictor and that is the intent everyone is going for when building these things.
  - kelnos 10mo ago
    I don't think that's clear at all. Businesses routinely break the law if they believe the benefits in doing so will outweigh the consequences. I think this is even more common and more brazen when it comes to "disruptive" businesses and technologies.
    - threethirtytwo 10mo ago
      >Businesses routinely break the law if they believe the benefits in doing so will outweigh the consequences. I'm saying there's collective incentive among businesses to restrict the LLM from producing illegal output. That is aligned and ultra clear. THAT was my point. But if LLMs produce illegal output as a side effect and it can't be controlled than your point comes into play here because now they have to weigh the cost + benefit as they don't have a choice in the matter. But that wasn't what I'm getting at. That's your new point, which you introduced here. In short it is clear all corporations do not want LLMs to produce illegal content and are actively trying to restrict it.
- lelanthran 10mo ago
  > It is not the scale that matters here, in your example, but intent. With 1 joint, you want to smoke yourself. With 400, you very possibly want to sell it to others. Scale in itself doesnt matter, scale matters only as to the extent it changes what your intention may be. It sounds then like you're saying that scale does indeed matter in this context, as using every single piece of writing in existence isn't being slurped up purely to learn, it's being slurped up to make a profit. Do you think they'd be able to offer a usefull LLM if the model was trained only what what an average person could read in a lifetime?

threethirtytwo 10mo ago

Er no. I’ve read and remember hundreds of books in my life time. It’s not any more illegal based off scale. The law doesn’t differentiate whether I remember one book or a hundred then there’s no difference for thousands or millions. No wishful thinking here.

lelanthran 10mo ago
> Er no. I’ve read and remember hundreds of books in my life time. It’s not any more illegal based off scale. I'm not sure you understood what you said, but superficially it appears that you are agreeing with me? Just because it's legal to read 100s of books does not make it legal to slurp up every single piece of produced content ever recorded. We're talking man many orders of magnitude in scale there, and you're the one who pointed out that scale :-/
- threethirtytwo 10mo ago
  No I'm not agreeing with you. >Just because it's legal to read 100s of books does not make it legal to slurp up every single piece of produced content ever recorded. The law says you're perfectly in your legal right to slurp up every piece of content ever produced. >We're talking man many orders of magnitude in scale there, and you're the one who pointed out that scale :-/ I'm aware, and the law doesn't talk about scale.
kelnos 10mo ago
What is "scale" in this context? I think arguably 100 books over the span of decades is not "scale". But tens (hundreds?) of thousands of books over the span of a few weeks? That's definitely "scale".
- threethirtytwo 10mo ago
  the law doesn't talk about scale, so either is perfectly legal. Memorizing a billion books vs memorizing one book. Same laws apply.

kalap_ur 10mo ago

It is not the scale that matters here, in your example, but intent. With 1 joint, you want to smoke yourself. With 400, you very possibly want to sell it to others. Scale in itself doesnt matter, scale matters only as to the extent it changes what your intention may be.

threethirtytwo 10mo ago
It’s clear nvidia and every single one of these big AI corps do not want their AIs to violate the law. The intent is clear as day here. Scale is only used for emergence, openAI found that training transformers on the entire internet would make is more then just a next token predictor and that is the intent everyone is going for when building these things.
- kelnos 10mo ago
  I don't think that's clear at all. Businesses routinely break the law if they believe the benefits in doing so will outweigh the consequences. I think this is even more common and more brazen when it comes to "disruptive" businesses and technologies.
  - threethirtytwo 10mo ago
    >Businesses routinely break the law if they believe the benefits in doing so will outweigh the consequences. I'm saying there's collective incentive among businesses to restrict the LLM from producing illegal output. That is aligned and ultra clear. THAT was my point. But if LLMs produce illegal output as a side effect and it can't be controlled than your point comes into play here because now they have to weigh the cost + benefit as they don't have a choice in the matter. But that wasn't what I'm getting at. That's your new point, which you introduced here. In short it is clear all corporations do not want LLMs to produce illegal content and are actively trying to restrict it.
lelanthran 10mo ago
> It is not the scale that matters here, in your example, but intent. With 1 joint, you want to smoke yourself. With 400, you very possibly want to sell it to others. Scale in itself doesnt matter, scale matters only as to the extent it changes what your intention may be. It sounds then like you're saying that scale does indeed matter in this context, as using every single piece of writing in existence isn't being slurped up purely to learn, it's being slurped up to make a profit. Do you think they'd be able to offer a usefull LLM if the model was trained only what what an average person could read in a lifetime?