←back to thread

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

(www.theregister.com)
451 points croes | 4 comments | 12 May 25 09:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.748s | source
Show context
mattxxx ◴[12 May 25 13:58 UTC] No.43962976[source]▶
Well, firing someone for this is super weird. It seems like an attempt to censor an interpretation of the law that:

1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law

My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against. When I look at the litany of derivative fantasy novels, it's obvious they're not all fully independent works.

Since AI is and will continue to be so useful and transformative, I think we just need to acknowledge that our laws did not accomodate this use-case, then we should change them.

replies(19): >>43963017 #>>43963125 #>>43963168 #>>43963214 #>>43963243 #>>43963311 #>>43963423 #>>43963517 #>>43963612 #>>43963721 #>>43963943 #>>43964079 #>>43964280 #>>43964365 #>>43964448 #>>43964562 #>>43965792 #>>43965920 #>>43976732 #
jeroenhd ◴[12 May 25 14:23 UTC] No.43963311[source]▶
Pirating movies is also useful, because I can watch movies without paying on devices that apps and accounts don't work on.

That doesn't make piracy legal, even though I get a lot of use out of it.

Also, a person isn't a computer so the "but I can read a book and get inspired" argument is complete nonsense.

replies(2): >>43963560 #>>43964460 #
1. Workaccount2 ◴[12 May 25 14:41 UTC] No.43963560[source]▶
It's only complete non-sense if you understand how humans learn. Which we don't.

What we do know though is that LLMs, similar to humans, do not directly copy information into their "storage". LLMs, like humans, are pretty lossy with their recall.

Compare this to something like a search indexed database, where the recall of information given to it is perfect.

replies(1): >>43964910 #
2. zelphirkalt ◴[12 May 25 16:36 UTC] No.43964910[source]▶
Well, you don't get to pick and choose in which situations an LLM is considered similar to a human being and in which not. If you argue that it similarly to a human is lossy, well let's go ahead and get most output checked by organizations and courts for violations of the law and licenses, just like human work is. Oh wait, I forgot, LLMs are run by companies with too much cash to successfully sue them. I guess we just have to live with it then, what a pity.
replies(2): >>43965269 #>>43967046 #
3. philipkglass ◴[12 May 25 17:11 UTC] No.43965269[source]▶
There are a couple of ways to theoretically prevent copyright violations in output. For closed models that aren't distributed as weights, companies could index perceptual hashes of all the training data at a granular level (like individual paragraphs of text) and check/retry output so that no duplicates or near-duplicates of copyrighted training data ever get served as a response to end users.

Another way would be to train an internal model directly on published works, use that model to generate a corpus of sanitary rewritten/reformatted data about the works still under copyright, then use the sanitized corpus to train a final model. For example, the sanitized corpus might describe the Harry Potter books in minute detail but not contain a single sentence taken from the originals. Models trained that way wouldn't be able to reproduce excerpts from Harry Potter books even if the models were distributed as open weights.

4. Workaccount2 ◴[12 May 25 20:18 UTC] No.43967046[source]▶
Youtube built probably the most complex and proactive copyright system any organization has ever seen, for the sole purpose of appeasing copyright holders. There is no reason to believe they won't do the same thing for LLM output.