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 human can't credit the source of each element of everything they've learnt. AI's can't either, and for the same reason.

The knowledge gets distorted, blended, and reinterpreted a million ways by the time it's given as output.

And the metadata (metaknowledge?) would be larger than the knowledge itself. The AI learnt every single concept it knows by reading online; including the structure of grammar, rules of logic, the meaning of words, how they relate to one another. You simply couldn't cite it all.

>>FredPr+7D
At the same time, there are situations where humans are expected to provide sources for their claims. If you talk about an event in the news, it would be normal for me to ask where you heard about it. 100% accuracy in providing a source wouldn’t be expected, but if you told me you had no idea, or told me something obviously nonsense, I would probably take what you said less seriously.

>>ahepp+j11
The raw technology behind it literally cannot do that.

The model is fuzzy, it's the learning part, it'll never follow the rules to the letter the same as humans fuck up all the time.

But a model trained to be literate and parse meaning could be provided with the hard data via a vector DB or similar, it can cite sources from there or as it finds them via the internet and tbf this is how they should've trained the model.

But in order to become literate, it needs to read...and us humans reuse phrases etc we've picked up all the time "as easy as pie" oops, copyright.

>>fennec+fL3
I agree that the model being fuzzy is key aspect of an LLM. It doesn't sound like we're just talking about re-using phrases though. "Simple as pie" is not under copyright. We're talking about the "knowledge" that the model has obtained and in some cases spits out verbatim without attribution.

I wonder if there's any possibility to train the model on a wide variety of sources, only for language function purposes, then as you say give it a separate knowledge vector.

>>ahepp+iN4
Sure, it definitely spits out facts, often not hallucinating. And it can reiterate titles and small chunks of copyright text.

But I still haven't seen a real example of it spitting out a book verbatim. You know where I think it got chunks of "copyright" text from GRRM's books?

Wikipedia. And https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Wiki_of_Westeros, https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_Page, https://data.world/datasets/game-of-thrones all the god dammed wikis, databases etc based on his work, of which there are many, and of which most quote sections or whole passages of the books.

Someone prove to me that GPT can reproduce enough text verbatim that it makes it clear that it was trained on the original text first hand basis, rather than second hand from other sources.