3 ms·
Yes I guess there's also no such thing as stealing in torrents since the computer "learns" the data and returns it in a transcoded fashion so it's technically n
by boh 5mo ago
Yes I guess there's also no such thing as stealing in torrents since the computer "learns" the data and returns it in a transcoded fashion so it's technically not a reproduction. Yes LLMs can reproduce passages from copyrighted works verbatim but that's only because it "learned" it and it's just telling you what it "knows".
The mental calisthenics required to justify this stuff must be exhausting.
- idle_zealot 5mo ago> The mental calisthenics required to justify this stuff must be exhausting. It's only exhausting if you think copyright ever reasonably settled the matter of ownership of knowledge and want to morally justify an incoherent set of outcomes that they personally favor. In practice it's primarily been a tool for the powerful party in any dispute to hammer others for disrupting their business model. I think that's pretty much the only way attempting to apply ownership semantics to knowledge or information can end up.
- balamatom 5mo agoCorrect. Knowledge consists of, roughly speaking, thoughts. (a "justified true belief" - per https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ - is a kind of thought) The "thinking" part of a "thinking being" - that also consists of thoughts. If your knowledges are someone's property, you are someone's property. A society where all knowledge is proprietary, is a society of ubiquitous slavery. Maybe multi-layered, maybe fractional, maybe with a smiley-face drawn on top. Doesn't matter.
- spankalee 5mo agoHumans have been known to recite entire parts from plays from memory, live in front of audiences even.
- Eisenstein 5mo agoThis is a perfect example of 'begging the question'. Arriving at a conclusion from a fact assumed as true without evidence. Your reductio does not actually demonstrate that copyright applies to LLMs, because you did not demonstrate how transcoding is comparable to inference, just that LLMs can reproduce some passages from copyrighted works. You could also produce passages from copyrighted works by generating enough random sequences of words, but no one is arguing that is comparable to transcoding. That the people who do not share this conclusion are engaging in motivated reasoning is based only on your assumption and has no logical backing, and is therefore begging the question.
- Dylan16807 5mo ago> Yes LLMs can reproduce passages from copyrighted works verbatim but that's only because it "learned" it and it's just telling you what it "knows". Are you finding people that actually say this? When it can quote something like that, it's a training error. A popular enough work gets quoted and copied by people online, and then it's not properly deduplicated. It's a very small fraction of works it can do that with, and the cleaner your data the less it happens. I'll once again quote that stable diffusion launched with fewer weights than training images. It had some accidental memorizations, but there wasn't room for its core functionality to be memorization-based.