3 ms·
so? It demonstrates that LLM models retain the copyrighted material in their weights. This is an important thing to consider about LLMs and shows that there nee
by dom96 8mo ago
so? It demonstrates that LLM models retain the copyrighted material in their weights. This is an important thing to consider about LLMs and shows that there need to be better protections for the creative industry.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoReally? I retain plenty of copyrighted material in my head. What matters is the contexts in which I reproduce it (if any). A search index might also contain copyrighted material. As long as it's used for search queries as opposed to regurgitation there's no problem. Search indexes and LLMs are both clearly very beneficial tools to have access to.
- themafia 8mo agoReproduce it. Sit in a clean room and write it all out. Then go check your accuracy. I'm curious to see what it is.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoWhat does this (thought) experiment accomplish? That is, what point are you trying to make here? Since we're talking about an electronic system the search index example is the more directly relevant one. Anyone who wants to object to LLMs is going to need to take care to ensure consistency with his views on Google's search index.
- themafia 8mo agoI wasn't aware I could read 95% of Harry Potter through constructed queries using Google's search index. Can you demonstrate how I might do this? Also can you point out how copyright law changes because we're using an "electronic system" as opposed to an "analog system?"
- fc417fc802 8mo agoYou could do the equivalent if they would let you. They don't. That's the point I was getting at. How the thing is used is what actually matters, not that it has "absorbed" copyrighted material. I never claimed any change in copyright law. Only that one analogy was more direct than the other for the purpose of the current discussion. You didn't answer my question. What point were you trying to make with your earlier reply?
- _DeadFred_ 8mo agoAre you a for profit product?
- fc417fc802 8mo agoProfessional performers could certainly be viewed as such in this analogy. They memorize and then reproduce copyrighted material as a matter of course.
- _DeadFred_ 8mo agoAnd when they do is when copyright protections might come into play. But not the basic learning of being a human being. My playing copyrighted music on my synths at home, or singing lyrics along are different than if I am a professional musician benefiting financially from playing someone else's music in public. Producing a product = market rules apply Just living as a human = totally different thing
- fc417fc802 8mo agoYes, I agree. That was my entire point when I said: What matters is the contexts in which I reproduce it (if any). The issue is not (or at least should not be) that LLMs are trained on material subject to copyright or can be very intentionally coaxed into regurgitating copyrighted material. The issue should be people building or using systems with the explicit intent of reproducing copyrighted material in an unauthorized manner.
- _DeadFred_ 8mo agoIf an LLM is a product, and it contains the work (in this case can spit out Harry Potter) it is derivative. Doesn't matter what it's used for.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoThat's dogma on your part. Rather than practical outcome you're opting for human exceptionalism. I can't accept that. Merely containing a work doesn't make something derivative. A photograph could inadvertently capture a copyrighted image in the background but so long as it isn't the primary focus I think your line of reasoning there fails.
- PeterStuer 8mo ago"there need to be better protections for the creative industry" Why exactly?