5 ms·

No - distillation is not data inputs. Raw materials vs. Value add. They are different things, like ore and metal. Distillation is a new thing we need to unde

No - distillation is not data inputs. Raw materials vs. Value add. They are different things, like ore and metal. Distillation is a new thing we need to understand, it's probably closer to IP than not.

tikhonj 3mo ago
The "data inputs" were also, very much, somebody's "value added" IP. We're talking about things like text people wrote, not some kind of raw data floating out in the ether.
- bluegatty 3mo ago
  Did I say there was no value add in the inputs? Ore has value, a different kind of value than the output of the refinery.
sho_hn 3mo ago
Are you suggesting data input is further from IP than distillation? That would stun me, but it's a little hard to read.
mkehrt 3mo ago
Do you think writing books (and Wikipedia articles, and stack overflow articles, and github repos, and, and, and, and ...) is not a value add?? What terrible claim.
dijksterhuis 3mo ago
distillation has been around for 12 years. it's not new in terms of ML techniques. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 although i doubt there has been a legal case over it yet in the context of the legality of stealing shit but IANAL.
- bluegatty 3mo ago
  Yes, I get that, but it's only now the issues are coming into the commons in a way that industry / society needs the regulatory clarity. It's completey insane that we still don't know how Open Source would work, that the laws are vague and we're still technically waiting for the courts to decide on cases. The government should a) legislate and b) create test cases and run them through the courts so that we can have clarity.
  - dijksterhuis 3mo ago
    > it's only now the issues are coming into the commons in a way that industry / society needs the regulatory clarity. you mean like the regulatory clarity surrounding stealing shit to make the LLMs in the first place? > [There is] extensive litigation on the limits of Fair Use to AI development. Currently, we only have 3 first instance decisions out of the 53 cases being tried. It will likely take a decade before we understand how Fair Use applies to any one step in AI training, let alone all. https://www.britishcopyright.org/wp-content/uploads/BCC-Fair-use-summary-final-2.pdf https://www.britishcopyright.org/wp-content/uploads/BCC-Fair... > The government should a) legislate and b) create test cases and run them through the courts so that we can have clarity. if so, it would be nice if they approached the instances of stealing shit chronologically. but that's just my view.
    - bluegatty 3mo ago
      It's hilarious to see how all these HN intellectuals, who on any other day are rabidly against most DRM / IP issues all of a sudden become private property absolutists. It's also sadly hypocritical to see all this rhetoric here on this thread decrying SOTAs for using a variety of content for their inputs as somehow sTeaLINg sTufF! ... ... but Chinese SOTA foundries directly using distillation as fair game. I don't think there is any coherence to any of these arguments - other than 'we liking big companies'. That's the only common thread. What is more reasonable: - There's some grounds for fair use by SOTA models to ingest content, so long as they are not reproducing it ... very roughly speaking. - SOTA makers are producing novel works, there is value add in that process, again roughly speaking. - Distillation is a bit of a grey zone, producing random content as arbitrary input is one thing, but producing training sets is another. I think there's a coherent line in there somewhere, I'm not sure where it is.
wasfgwp 3mo ago
LLM outputs are not copyrightable or rather the user who generated them owns it. That entirely settles it and there isn’t much else to say about. If Anthropic feels that other countries are violating their EULA well they are free to stop doing business with them.
- spwa4 3mo ago
  The claim these companies make goes much, much further than that. They claim LLMs "uncopyright" their inputs. So if I take, say, 50 Mickey Mouse comic books, tell ChatGPT to read them and produce 50 "Buster Beagle" comic books that there is ZERO "copyright contamination" and I own those 50 output comics without Disney having any claims on them whatsoever. Or if I ask ChatGPT to "make a spreadsheet software like Excel, Sheets, Calc, ..." that, again, there is zero copyright claim possible from these people. It has not been tested, of course.

tikhonj 3mo ago

The "data inputs" were also, very much, somebody's "value added" IP. We're talking about things like text people wrote, not some kind of raw data floating out in the ether.

bluegatty 3mo ago
Did I say there was no value add in the inputs? Ore has value, a different kind of value than the output of the refinery.

sho_hn 3mo ago

Are you suggesting data input is further from IP than distillation? That would stun me, but it's a little hard to read.

mkehrt 3mo ago

Do you think writing books (and Wikipedia articles, and stack overflow articles, and github repos, and, and, and, and ...) is not a value add?? What terrible claim.

dijksterhuis 3mo ago

distillation has been around for 12 years. it's not new in terms of ML techniques. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 although i doubt there has been a legal case over it yet in the context of the legality of stealing shit but IANAL.

bluegatty 3mo ago
Yes, I get that, but it's only now the issues are coming into the commons in a way that industry / society needs the regulatory clarity. It's completey insane that we still don't know how Open Source would work, that the laws are vague and we're still technically waiting for the courts to decide on cases. The government should a) legislate and b) create test cases and run them through the courts so that we can have clarity.
- dijksterhuis 3mo ago
  > it's only now the issues are coming into the commons in a way that industry / society needs the regulatory clarity. you mean like the regulatory clarity surrounding stealing shit to make the LLMs in the first place? > [There is] extensive litigation on the limits of Fair Use to AI development. Currently, we only have 3 first instance decisions out of the 53 cases being tried. It will likely take a decade before we understand how Fair Use applies to any one step in AI training, let alone all. https://www.britishcopyright.org/wp-content/uploads/BCC-Fair-use-summary-final-2.pdf https://www.britishcopyright.org/wp-content/uploads/BCC-Fair... > The government should a) legislate and b) create test cases and run them through the courts so that we can have clarity. if so, it would be nice if they approached the instances of stealing shit chronologically. but that's just my view.
  - bluegatty 3mo ago
    It's hilarious to see how all these HN intellectuals, who on any other day are rabidly against most DRM / IP issues all of a sudden become private property absolutists. It's also sadly hypocritical to see all this rhetoric here on this thread decrying SOTAs for using a variety of content for their inputs as somehow sTeaLINg sTufF! ... ... but Chinese SOTA foundries directly using distillation as fair game. I don't think there is any coherence to any of these arguments - other than 'we liking big companies'. That's the only common thread. What is more reasonable: - There's some grounds for fair use by SOTA models to ingest content, so long as they are not reproducing it ... very roughly speaking. - SOTA makers are producing novel works, there is value add in that process, again roughly speaking. - Distillation is a bit of a grey zone, producing random content as arbitrary input is one thing, but producing training sets is another. I think there's a coherent line in there somewhere, I'm not sure where it is.

wasfgwp 3mo ago

LLM outputs are not copyrightable or rather the user who generated them owns it. That entirely settles it and there isn’t much else to say about. If Anthropic feels that other countries are violating their EULA well they are free to stop doing business with them.

spwa4 3mo ago
The claim these companies make goes much, much further than that. They claim LLMs "uncopyright" their inputs. So if I take, say, 50 Mickey Mouse comic books, tell ChatGPT to read them and produce 50 "Buster Beagle" comic books that there is ZERO "copyright contamination" and I own those 50 output comics without Disney having any claims on them whatsoever. Or if I ask ChatGPT to "make a spreadsheet software like Excel, Sheets, Calc, ..." that, again, there is zero copyright claim possible from these people. It has not been tested, of course.