this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
694 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

59038 readers
4507 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 75 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We have to distinguish between LLMs

  • Trained on copyrighted material and
  • Outputting copyrighted material

They are not one and the same

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, this headline is trying to make it seem like training on copyrighted material is or should be wrong.

[–] scv@discuss.online 25 points 1 year ago

Legally the output of the training could be considered a derived work. We treat brains differently here, that's all.

I think the current intellectual property system makes no sense and AI is revealing that fact.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I think this brings up broader questions about the currently quite extreme interpretation of copyright. Personally I don't think its wrong to sample from or create derivative works from something that is accessible. If its not behind lock and key, its free to use. If you have a problem with that, then put it behind lock and key. No one is forcing you to share your art with the world.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Should we distinguish it though? Why shouldn't (and didn't) artists have a say if their art is used to train LLMs? Just like publicly displayed art doesn't provide a permission to copy it and use it in other unspecified purposes, it would be reasonable that the same would apply to AI training.

[–] theterrasque@infosec.pub 10 points 1 year ago

Just like publicly displayed art doesn't provide a permission to copy it and use it in other unspecified purposes

But it kinda does. If I see a van Gogh painting, I can be inspired to make a painting in the same style.

When "ai" "learns" from an image, it doesn't copy the image or even parts of the image directly. It learns the patterns involved instead, over many pictures. Then it uses those patterns to make new images.

[–] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Ah, but that's the thing. Training isn't copying. It's pattern recognition. If you train a model "The dog says woof" and then ask a model "What does the dog say", it's not guaranteed to say "woof".

Similarly, just because a model was trained on Harry Potter, all that means is it has a good corpus of how the sentences in that book go.

Thus the distinction. Can I train on a comment section discussing the book?

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Output from an AI has just been recently considered as not copyrightable.

I think it stemmed from the actors strikes recently.

It was stated that only work originating from a human can be copyrighted.

[–] Anders429@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Output from an AI has just been recently considered as not copyrightable.

Where can I read more about this? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but never with any links.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They clearly only read the headline If they're talking about the ruling that came out this week, that whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine. So an AI itself can’t be authors or hold a copyright, but humans using them can still be copyright holders of any qualifying works.

[–] pornthrowaway2@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 year ago

They might’ve just been bringing it up conversationally as it’s in a similar vein too