4 ms·
Yet they did not need to destroy the models which were trained with them?
by nicce 3mo ago
Yet they did not need to destroy the models which were trained with them?
- zaptrem 3mo agoShould we require the destruction of the brains of those that watch pirated movies?
- hmry 3mo agoDifferent situations call for different responses. When someone steals a watch, we force them to give it back. Yet when someone steals a cake and eats it, we don't force them to puke it back up. If you pirate a movie, the court might very well force you to delete all the copies you made of the movie you downloaded, destroy DVDs you burned, etc.
- raverbashing 3mo agoThanks for proving current copyright law makes no sense Here's a better idea, a fixed fee for any work. You can buy the license to read a book for $X (for whatever purpose) in RAND terms - of course publisher/material costs go on top, so if you're buying an actual book you're getting the material costs as well - or streaming fees or whatever
- shakna 3mo agoYou can already buy books today. Doing so for training is currently considered fair use. Anthropic simply considered that cost prohibitive and chose piracy instead.
- TightFibre 3mo agoWell I enjoyed this response.
- nicce 3mo agoHave we already agreed that AI is already equal to human life and not machine?
- ascorbic 3mo agoUsing them was allowed as fair use – it was the downloading of the pirated copies that was infringement. That's why Anthropic switched to scanning paper books.
- realusername 3mo agoIf using the books is fair use, then distilling the model, which is just a derived product of those books is also fair use. These companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
- ascorbic 3mo agoProbably, yes. It's likely just a breach in their terms of service. You'll note that they're not suing them – they're trying to get the government to do their work for them.
- drdaeman 3mo agoHmm, training on a book’s text smears the content all over the weights, merging it with all other texts. The original text isn’t intentionally supposed to be reproducible in any larger part (although IIRC models were able to emit fairly large chunks verbatim). Quite unlikely, training on behavior purportedly approximately replicates the behavior. It gets replicated intentionally as a whole. IANAL, but I see significant differences with intent to copy a significant part as a whole into a competing product, surely shouldn’t fit under legal concept of fair use, no matter whether scanning books for LLM training fits or not. Whether such things (behaviors) are copyrightable - and should they be so - is another interesting question. Those aren’t algorithms or databases (stuff clearly and explicitly covered in many copyright laws), those are human expectation models, something like how we train animals or teach our own.
- didroe 3mo agoIt's the exact same training process for both of your examples. I don't really see how you can claim books are not replicated, but that output from other LLMs is.