3 ms·

If 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

If 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 4mo ago
Probably, 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 4mo ago
Hmm, 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 4mo ago
  It'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.
  - drdaeman 4mo ago
    Process is the same, but intent is not. One intent is to extract information from the book for better general eloquence and overall awareness - not for replicating the book itself (ability to recall verbatim fragments is a side effect, not the goal). Another intent is to replicate the behavior, carry it over using training. Again - IANAL - but in my understanding (and I spend some time reading on this), the legal concept of fair use is all about the intent how copyrighted material is used. It's all copying or distribution, but law does make distinction about what and why.
- realusername 4mo ago
  > Hmm, 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). I agree with that, however that doesn't make the output copyrightable then. I think these AI companies live in a legal fantasy where they can take any content they want, put it into the mixer without caring about copyright and then what comes out of it is somehow copyrighted. They have to pick one or the other, either the content copyright tains the model or it doesn't but the model isn't subject to copyright. > those are human expectation models, something like how we train animals or teach our own. But more importantly, made by machines, and one of the requirements for copyright is the human factor.
  - dataflow 4mo ago
    > I think these AI companies live in a legal fantasy where they can take any content they want, put it into the mixer without caring about copyright and then what comes out of it is somehow copyrighted. The mixer you're talking about is what they seem to claim to be transformative use, no? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it's not a legal fantasy.
    - realusername 4mo ago
      > The mixer you're talking about is what they seem to claim to be transformative use, no? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it's not a legal fantasy. If it's transformative use, then it's transformative use of ... what exactly? Copyrighted works? I think the law is pretty clear on what happens on transformative use of copyrighted works.
      - drdaeman 4mo ago
        > it's transformative use of ... what exactly? Copyrighted works? Yes. Among other stuff, but non-copyrighted stuff is not exactly an issue so it can be left out of our focus most of the time. > I think the law is pretty clear on what happens on transformative use of copyrighted works. Ah, if only - it's not. You could be mixing it up with concept of derived work - that's where the law is pretty clear (I think). AFAIK (IANAL), transformativeness is merely a suggestive factor for fair use consideration, and then it's all "whatever court decides" with a bunch of guidelines and precedents.

If 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 4mo ago

Probably, 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 4mo ago

Hmm, 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 4mo ago
It'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.
- drdaeman 4mo ago
  Process is the same, but intent is not. One intent is to extract information from the book for better general eloquence and overall awareness - not for replicating the book itself (ability to recall verbatim fragments is a side effect, not the goal). Another intent is to replicate the behavior, carry it over using training. Again - IANAL - but in my understanding (and I spend some time reading on this), the legal concept of fair use is all about the intent how copyrighted material is used. It's all copying or distribution, but law does make distinction about what and why.
realusername 4mo ago
> Hmm, 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). I agree with that, however that doesn't make the output copyrightable then. I think these AI companies live in a legal fantasy where they can take any content they want, put it into the mixer without caring about copyright and then what comes out of it is somehow copyrighted. They have to pick one or the other, either the content copyright tains the model or it doesn't but the model isn't subject to copyright. > those are human expectation models, something like how we train animals or teach our own. But more importantly, made by machines, and one of the requirements for copyright is the human factor.
- dataflow 4mo ago
  > I think these AI companies live in a legal fantasy where they can take any content they want, put it into the mixer without caring about copyright and then what comes out of it is somehow copyrighted. The mixer you're talking about is what they seem to claim to be transformative use, no? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it's not a legal fantasy.
  - realusername 4mo ago
    > The mixer you're talking about is what they seem to claim to be transformative use, no? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it's not a legal fantasy. If it's transformative use, then it's transformative use of ... what exactly? Copyrighted works? I think the law is pretty clear on what happens on transformative use of copyrighted works.
    - drdaeman 4mo ago
      > it's transformative use of ... what exactly? Copyrighted works? Yes. Among other stuff, but non-copyrighted stuff is not exactly an issue so it can be left out of our focus most of the time. > I think the law is pretty clear on what happens on transformative use of copyrighted works. Ah, if only - it's not. You could be mixing it up with concept of derived work - that's where the law is pretty clear (I think). AFAIK (IANAL), transformativeness is merely a suggestive factor for fair use consideration, and then it's all "whatever court decides" with a bunch of guidelines and precedents.