3 ms·
> If the legal system declares the first thief’s theft not theft But they didn't find it. The Big LLM provider accepted guilt and paid a fine. You can argue w
by BeetleB 2mo ago
> If the legal system declares the first thief’s theft not theft
But they didn't find it. The Big LLM provider accepted guilt and paid a fine.
You can argue whether it was a fair amount they paid, but there is no legal precedent that was set. It's still considered theft.
- kennywinker 2mo agoAs i understand it, they accepted guilt for downloading stuff illegally. They didn’t accept guilt for incorporating all of human output into their model without consent.
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo agoCopyright law only considers illegal ownership of a work, so the crime - or tort - was making/acquiring copies without permission or payment. Training from copies has been ruled fair use because it's "transformative" and not simply "derivative." This is obviously debatable, but that's where the debate is at the moment.
- michelsedgh 2mo agoSo basically because they just browsed and used the information that was mostly public on the internet and they didnt copy it, they just learned from it and thats fine. Which makes sense. None of the llms let u copy someones work exactly anyways... makes total sense honestly. So in this case what happens to distilling? Is that also learning or ur trying to get to their actual weights by kind of reverse engineering it? Where would the argument fall there?
- kennywinker 2mo ago> but that's where the debate is at the moment. Because of the rulings of a couple of judges. Is that actually what the majority of people think? > Copyright law only considers illegal ownership of a work That's definitely not true. File sharing, for example, is illegal even if you legally own the original copy you're sharing. Similarly, copyright has something to say if I read a legal copy of harry potter and then create a new work in that world.
- BeetleB 2mo ago> Because of the rulings of a couple of judges. Is that actually what the majority of people think? There's a good reason for the law not to be based on what the majority thinks.
- kennywinker 2mo agoIf you’re gonna equate copyright law being tied to a majority sense of morality, with some kind of mob rule, ya lost me. Sure i don’t think the majority get to dictate things like who has rights or who the law applies to. That doesn’t apply here tho.
- BeetleB 2mo ago> They didn’t accept guilt for incorporating all of human output into their model without consent. Because that use case is actually permitted by law.
- kennywinker 2mo agoI mean... that's one interpretation of the law, sure. The law was written before the idea of an LLM existed, and some judges in some specific cases decided the previous law covered this usage. So, it comes down to if you believe a couple judges ruling on a couple cases is the right way to determine a world-altering new legal framework.
- BeetleB 2mo ago> So, it comes down to if you believe a couple judges ruling on a couple cases is the right way to determine a world-altering new legal framework. It's not an either-or.
- kennywinker 2mo agoKinda is.
- nolok 2mo ago> But they didn't find it. The Big LLM provider accepted guilt and paid a fine. That's not how it works. You have to give it back. Otherwise, the distiller can just pay a fine (no larger than the original did) and be okay then, right ?
- BeetleB 2mo ago[dead]
- throwaway27448 2mo agoTrue. It's the courts that failed humanity. Or perhaps the shits that invented copyright to start