←back to thread

989 points acomjean | 1 comments | | HN request time: 1.123s | source
Show context
aeon_ai ◴[] No.45143392[source]
To be very clear on this point - this is not related to model training.

It’s important in the fair use assessment to understand that the training itself is fair use, but the pirating of the books is the issue at hand here, and is what Anthropic “whoopsied” into in acquiring the training data.

Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine.

Rainbows End was prescient in many ways.

replies(36): >>45143460 #>>45143461 #>>45143507 #>>45143513 #>>45143567 #>>45143731 #>>45143840 #>>45143861 #>>45144037 #>>45144244 #>>45144321 #>>45144837 #>>45144843 #>>45144845 #>>45144903 #>>45144951 #>>45145884 #>>45145907 #>>45146038 #>>45146135 #>>45146167 #>>45146218 #>>45146268 #>>45146425 #>>45146773 #>>45146935 #>>45147139 #>>45147257 #>>45147558 #>>45147682 #>>45148227 #>>45150324 #>>45150567 #>>45151562 #>>45151934 #>>45153210 #
zer00eyz ◴[] No.45143861[source]
> It’s important in the fair use assessment to understand that the training itself is fair use,

I think that this is a distinction many people miss.

If you take all the works of Shakespeare, and reduce it to tokens and vectors is it Shakespeare or is it factual information about Shakespeare? It is the latter, and as much as organizations like the MLB might want to be able to copyright a fact you simply cannot do that.

Take this one step further. IF you buy the work, and vectorize it, thats fine. But if you feed it in the vectors for Harry Potter so many times that it can reproduce half of the book, it becomes a problem when it spits out that copy.

And what about all the other stuff that LLM's spit out? Who owns that. Well at present, no one. If you train a monkey or an elephant to paint, you cant copyright that work because they aren't human, and neither is an LLM.

If you use an LLM to generate your code at work, can you leave with that code when you quit? Does GPL3 or something like the Elastic Search license even apply if there is no copyright?

I suspect we're going to be talking about court cases a lot for the next few years.

replies(5): >>45143975 #>>45143979 #>>45144019 #>>45145780 #>>45146932 #
1. zmmmmm ◴[] No.45145780[source]
The question is going to be how much human intellectual input there was I think. I don't think it will take much - you can write the crappiest novel on earth that is complete random drivel and you still have copyright on it.

So to me, if you are doing literally any human review, edits, control over the AI then I think you'll retain copyright. There may be a risk that if somebody can show that they could produce exactly the same thing from a generic prompt with no interaction then you may be in trouble, but let's face it should you have copyright at that point?

This is, however, why I favor stopping slightly short of full agentic development at this point. I want the human watching each step and an audit trail of the human interaction in doing it. Sure I might only get to 5x development speed instead of 10x or 20x but that is already such an enormous step up from where we were a year ago that I am quite OK with that for now.