zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
I hope this results in Fair Use being expanded to cover AI training. This is way more important to humanity's future than any single media outlet. If the NYT goes under, a dozen similar outlets can replace them overnight. If we lose AI to stupid IP battles in its infancy, we end up handicapping probably the single most important development in human history just to protect some ancient newspaper. Then another country is going to do it anyway, and still the NYT is going to get eaten.

>>solard+Aj
Why can't AI at least cite its source? This feels like a broader problem, nothing specific to the NYTimes.

Long term, if no one is given credit for their research, either the creators will start to wall off their content or not create at all. Both options would be sad.

A humane attribution comment from the AI could go a long way - "I think I read something about this <topic X> in the NYTimes <link> on January 3rd, 2021."

It appears that without attribution, long term, nothing moves forward.

AI loses access to the latest findings from humanity. And so does the public.

>>aantix+1l
A neural net is not a database where the original source is sitting somewhere in an obvious place with a reference. A neural net is a black box of functions that have been automatically fit to the training data. There is no way to know what sources have been memorized vs which have made their mark by affecting other types of functions in the neural net.

>>apante+6m
Presumably, if a passage of any significant length is cited verbatim (or almost verbatim), there would have been a way to track that source through the weights.

The issue of replicating a style is probably more difficult.

>>layer8+1s
> Presumably, if a passage of any significant length is cited verbatim (or almost verbatim), there would have been a way to track that source through the weights.

Figure this out and you get to choose which AI lab you want to make seven figures at. It's a really difficult problem.

>>solvei+Av
> Figure this out and you get to choose which AI lab you want to make seven figures at. It's a really difficult problem.

It doesn't have to be perfect to be helpful, and even something that is very imperfect would at least send the signal that model-owners give a shit about attribution in general.

Given a specific output, it might be hard to say which sections of the very large weighted network were tickled during the output, and what inputs were used to build that section of the network. But this level of "citation resolution" is not always what people are necessarily interested in. If an LLM is giving medical advice, I might want to at least know whether it's reading medical journals or facebook posts. If it's political advice/summary/synthesis, it might be relevant to know how much it's been reading Marx vs Lenin or whatever. Pin-pointing original paragraphs as sources would be great, but for most models it's not like there's anything that's very clear about the input datasets.

EDIT: Building on this a bit, a lot of people are really worried about AI "poisoning the well" such that they are retraining on content generated by other AIs so that algorithmic feeds can trash the next-gen internet even worse than the current one. This shows that attribution-sourcing even at the basic level of "only human generated content is used in this model" can be useful and confidence-inspiring.