zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
Solidly rooting for NYT on this - it’s felt like many creative organizations have been asleep at the wheel while their lunch gets eaten for a second time (the first being at the birth of modern search engines.)

I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if they put the horse before the cart. I do think they should quickly course correct at this point and accept the fact that they clearly owe something to the creators of content they are consuming. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a bigger loss down the road and leaving the door open for a more established competitor (Google) to do it the right way.

>>kbos87+Na
For all the leaks on: Secret projects, novelty training algorithms not being published anymore so as to preserve market share, custom hardware, Q* learning, internal politics at companies at the forefront of state of the art LLMs...A thunderous silence is the lack of leaks, on the exact datasets used to train the main commercial LLMs.

It is clear OpenAI or Google did not use only Common Crawl. With so many press conferences why did no research journalist ask yet from OpenAI or Google to confirm or deny if they use or used LibGen?

Did OpenAI really bought an ebook of every publication from Cambridge Press, Oxford Press, Manning, APress, and so on? Did any of investors due diligence, include researching the legality of the content used for training?

>>belter+kl
I'm not for or against anything at this point until someone gets their balls out and clearly defines what copyright infringement means in this context.

If you give a bunch of books to a kid all by the same author and then pay that kid to write a book in a similar style and then I go on to sell that book...have I somehow infringed copyright?

The kids book at best is likely to be a very convincing facsimile of the original authors work...but not the authors work.

It seems to me that the only solution for artists is to charge for access to their work in a secure environment then lobotomise people on the way out.

The endgame seems to be "you can view and enjoy our work, but if you want to learn or be inspired by it, thats not on"

>>hhsect+nb1
There are two problems with the “kid” analogy:

a) In many closely comparable scenarios, yes, it’s copyright infringement. When Francis Ford Coppola made The Godfather film, he couldn’t just be “inspired” by Puzo’s book. If the story or characters or dialog are similar enough, he has to pay Puzo, even if the work he created was quite different and not a literal “copy”.

b) Training an LLM isn’t like giving someone a book. Among other things, it involves making a derivative copy into GPU memory. This copy is not a transitory copy in service of a fair use, nor likely a fair use in itself, nor licensed by the rights-holder.

>>twoodf+Wl1
> This copy is not a transitory copy in service of a fair use

Training is almost certainly fair use, so it's exactly a transitory copy in service of fair use. Training, other than the brief "transitory copy" you mention is not copying, it's making a minuscule algorithmic adjustment based on fleeting exposure to the data.

>>andy99+2q1
If you overtrain the model may include verbatim copies of your training material, and may be able to produce verbatim copies of the original in its output.

If Microsoft truly believes that the trained output doesn't violate copyright then it should be forced to prove that by training it on all its internal source code, including Windows.