4 ms·

It's absolutely prohibited to copy and redistribute for commercial purposes materials that you're unlicensed to do so with. This isn't an issue when it comes t

by munk-a 7mo ago

It's absolutely prohibited to copy and redistribute for commercial purposes materials that you're unlicensed to do so with. This isn't an issue when it comes to the copy-left scenario (though it may potentially enforce transitive licensing requirements on the copier that LLM runners don't want to follow) but it is a huge issue that has come up with LLM training. LLM training involves ingesting works (in a potentially transformative process) and partially reproduce them - that's a generally restricted action when it comes to licensing.

crazygringo 7mo ago
> It's absolutely prohibited to copy and redistribute for commercial purposes materials that you're unlicensed to do so with. Sure, but that's not what LLM's generally do, and it's certainly not what they're intended to do. The LLM companies, and many other people, argue that training falls under fair use. One element of fair use is whether the purpose/character is sufficiently transformative, and transforming texts into weights without even a remote 1-1 correspondence is the transformation. And this is why LLM companies ensure that partial reproduction doesn't happen during LLM usage, using a kind of copyrighted-text filter as a last check in case anything would unintentionally get through. (And it doesn't even tend to occur in the first place, except when the LLM is trained on a bunch of copies of the same text.)
- munk-a 7mo ago
  Yea, at the end of the day a big part of this question comes down to whether that copying is fair use and that is an open question with the transformative nature being the primary point in favor of the LLM. But it is copying from some works to another - if it doesn't have some fair use exception it is absolutely violating the licensing of most of the training data. It's a bit different from previous settled case law because it's copying so little from so many billions of different things. I think blocking reproduction is wise by LLM companies for PR purposes but it doesn't guarantee that training is a license exempted activity.
  - crazygringo 7mo ago
    Yup. Of course it's copying. But all expectations are that courts will rule that fair use allows such copying, because of the nature of the transformation.
  - strogonoff 7mo ago
    Would it be fair to say that if you steal from enough people then it becomes OK? I can’t see it—especially considering this is IP law, expected to grant people confidence in their authorship rights and thus encourage innovation and creativity.
    - duskdozer 7mo ago
      it's "if you steal fast enough and ubiquitously enough, then you win" where the goal is you've so entrenched your position that by the time a lawsuit rolls around, there isn't any real remedy. ideally, there would have been a day 1 lawsuit and injunction.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

by munk-a 7mo ago

crazygringo 7mo ago

> It's absolutely prohibited to copy and redistribute for commercial purposes materials that you're unlicensed to do so with. Sure, but that's not what LLM's generally do, and it's certainly not what they're intended to do. The LLM companies, and many other people, argue that training falls under fair use. One element of fair use is whether the purpose/character is sufficiently transformative, and transforming texts into weights without even a remote 1-1 correspondence is the transformation. And this is why LLM companies ensure that partial reproduction doesn't happen during LLM usage, using a kind of copyrighted-text filter as a last check in case anything would unintentionally get through. (And it doesn't even tend to occur in the first place, except when the LLM is trained on a bunch of copies of the same text.)

munk-a 7mo ago
Yea, at the end of the day a big part of this question comes down to whether that copying is fair use and that is an open question with the transformative nature being the primary point in favor of the LLM. But it is copying from some works to another - if it doesn't have some fair use exception it is absolutely violating the licensing of most of the training data. It's a bit different from previous settled case law because it's copying so little from so many billions of different things. I think blocking reproduction is wise by LLM companies for PR purposes but it doesn't guarantee that training is a license exempted activity.
- crazygringo 7mo ago
  Yup. Of course it's copying. But all expectations are that courts will rule that fair use allows such copying, because of the nature of the transformation.
- strogonoff 7mo ago
  Would it be fair to say that if you steal from enough people then it becomes OK? I can’t see it—especially considering this is IP law, expected to grant people confidence in their authorship rights and thus encourage innovation and creativity.
  - duskdozer 7mo ago
    it's "if you steal fast enough and ubiquitously enough, then you win" where the goal is you've so entrenched your position that by the time a lawsuit rolls around, there isn't any real remedy. ideally, there would have been a day 1 lawsuit and injunction.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]