this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
211 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37702 readers
286 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I'm actually surprised by the comments in here. This technology is incredibly disruptive to authors, if they are correct that their intellectual property has been misused by these companies to train LLMs, then they absolutely should have the right to prevent that.

You can both be pro AI and advancement, and still respect creators intellectual rights and the right to not have all content stolen by megacorporations and used by them to create profits while decimating entire industries.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly this, this is the equivalent of me taking a movie, making a function, charge for it, and then be displeased when the creators demand an explanation about it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's more like reading a book and then charging people to ask you questions about it.

AI training isn't only for mega-corporations. We can already train our own open source models, so we should let people put up barriers that will keep out all but the ultra-wealthy.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

But when the answers aren't original thoughts but regurgitations of other peoples' thoughts about the book, then it's plagiarism. LLMs can't provide original output, only variations on what people have made available (whether legally or not). The answer might not even be correct or make any sense. It's just predictive text to a crazy degree.

When you copy someone's work without attribution, that's plagiarism. When your output is only possible because of someone else's work over which they own copyright and the output replicated the copyrighted material, that's copyright infringement.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s more like reading a book and then charging people to ask you questions about it.

No, it's really nothing like reading at all. Your example requires a human element. This is just the consumption of data, not reading.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Humans are the ones making these models. It's not entirely the same thing, but you should read this article by the EFF.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that it is even remotely close to being the same thing. I'm sorry but we shouldn't be affording companies the ability to profit off other people's creations without their consent, regardless of how current copyright law works.

Acting as though a human writing a summary is the same thing as a vast network of computers processing data at a speed that is hundreds if not thousands times faster than a human is foolish. Perhaps it is also foolish to try and apply our current copyright laws (which already favour large corporations and not individual creators) to this slew of new technology, but just ignoring the fundamental difference between the two is no way of going about it. We need copyright reform, we need protections for creators, and we need to stop acting as though machine learning algorithms are remotely comparable to humans both in their capabilities, responsibilities and rights.

There is a perfectly reasonable way of doing this ethically, and that is using content that people have provided to the model of their own volition with their consent either volunteered or paid for, but not scraped from an epub, regardless of if you bought it or downloaded it from libgen.

There are already companies training machine learning models ethically in this manner, and if creators do not want their content used as training data, it should not be.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

No, it's more like checking out every book from the library, and spending 450 years training at the speed of light, being evaluated on how well you can exactly reproduce the next part of any snippet taken from any book.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

One of the largest communities on Lemmy is [email protected], so I'm not really surprised that there's people that don't care about copyright :)

On the other hand, if a human is allowed to write a summary of a book, why should an AI not be allowed to do the same thing? Are they going to sue cliffnotes too?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hold on, piracy isn't necessarily not caring about copyright, but can be (and is, in a lot of cases), about fighting against the big corporations who take advantage of historically abusive copyright laws to dominate the market and prevent small authors and companies from surviving.

These AI companies, despite being copyright violators, are much closer to the big IP monopolists than the small authors, which are victims of both groups.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (3 children)

'Reading my book infringes on my copyright.' say confused writers.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a strawman.

You cannot act as though feeding LLMs data is remotely comparable to reading.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because reading is an inherently human activity.

An LLM consuming data from a training model is not.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

LLMs forcing us to take a look at ourselves and see if we're really that special.

I don't think we are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This is what I never understood about the whole training on AI thing.

When a human creates an artwork, they don't do it out of a vacuum. They've had a lifetime of inspiration from artwork they've discovered that inspires then to create something wholly new. AI does the same thing

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The AIs we are talking about are large language models. They take human work as input and produce facsimiles. They are owned by individuals or companies that have no permission to exploit in this way intellectual property tied to other people's livelihoods to copy them.

LLMs are not sentient, they don't have inspiration, they are not creative and therefore do not create in the sense an artist would. They are an elaborate mathematical equation.

"Training" an AI has nothing to do with training an actual living being. It's just tuning: adjusting an algorithm incrementally until the operator is satisfied with the result. I think it's defendable to amount this form of extraction to plagiarism.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Most likely, if you ask ChatGPT to summarize a famous book, it does not need to have ever trained on the book itself. The easiest way for an LLM to create a summary of something is to base its summary off existing summaries created by humans. If it's ruled in court that ChatGPT is infringing on the copyright of a book's author only by repeating information it acquired from other summaries created by humans, what implications does that have for the humans who wrote the other summaries?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Dude, tell me, why do u think they have being doing this only with books and art but no music?

Thats because music really has people protecting their assets. U can have ur opinion about it, but that's the only reason they haven't ABUSED companies and people's work in music.

It's not reading, it's the equivalent of me taking a movie, making a function, charge for it, and then be displeased when the creators demand an explanation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In other news, old man yells at clouds.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Yeah I'll be very surprised if this goes anywhere, are they going to sue cliffsnotes as well?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

“If a user prompts ChatGPT to summarize a copyrighted book, it will do so,” the suit claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bedwetter

Time to add wikipedia to the suit!

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People keep taking issue with this articles use of "summarizing" and linking to wikipedia... Summaries of copyrighted work are obviously not illegal.

This article is oversimplified and does a crummy job of explaining the problem. Ars Technica does a much better job explaining.

The fact that the ai can summarize these works in detail is proof that they were trained using copyrighted material without permission, (which is not fair use) Sarah Silverman is obviously not going to be hurt financially by this, but there are hundreds of thousands of authors who definitely will be affected. They have every right to sue.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why does "fair use" even fall into it? I'm not familiar with their specific license, but the general definition of copyright is:

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.

Nothing was copied, or distributed (in a form that anybody can consider "The Work"), or displayed, or performed. The only possible legal argument they have is adapting as a derivative work. And anybody who is familiar with how an LLM works knows that the form that results from reading in content is completely different from the source.

LLMs/LDMs are not taking in billions of books and putting them into a database. It is a very lossy process. Out of all of the billions of images trained from the Stable Diffusion database, the resulting model is 4 GBs. There is no universe where you can store billions of images into a mere 4 GBs. Stable Diffusion cannot and will not, pixel-by-pixel, reproduce a Van Gogh. It can make something that kind of looks like a Van Gogh, but styles are not copyrightable.

The same applies to an LLM like ChatGPT. It cannot reproduce entire books, or anywhere close to that. If you ask it to recreate Page 25 of Silverman's book, it can't do it. If it doesn't even contain a minor portion of the original material, it can't even be considered a derivative work.

They don't have a case. They have a lot of publicity and noise, but they will lose to inevitability.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You make a lot of excellent points, but I think the main issue of contention is just using copyrighted work to train generative AI without the author's permission regardless.

If they did ask permission, there would be no problem. But an author or artist should be given the choice if their work is going to be used to train an AI.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

You make a lot of excellent points, but I think the main issue of contention is just using copyrighted work to train generative AI without the author’s permission regardless.

If I read a book at the library... and come up with an amazing revolutionary product. Then make a company and go on to make billions of dollar per year. The original book Author has no claim to my income.

There's no contention. This is just a money grab. Copyright doesn't disallow people from consuming the content as they please. It simply disallows someone to pass off the original works as your own when it's not.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

OP, I just wanted to say thank you for writing such a good title. It's rare to get such an informative, clickbait-free title these days.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

if asked by a user prompts chatGPT to summarize a copyrighted book, it will do so.

So will a human. Let's stop extending copyright law. Also, how you know it read the book, and not a summary of it, of which there are loads on the internet?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is why I am pro AI art. It’s no different than a human taking inspiration from other work.

Nobody comes up with anything truly original. It’s all inspired by someone before them.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don’t know how anyone is pro AI anything other than the pigs making money from it. Only bad can result of it. And will.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t know how anyone can be anti AI.

It’s just a tool. To say that only bad can result of it is a bold claim that doesn’t make any sense.

Can you provide an example?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Just wait and see.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

I'm not anti AI, I'm against companies making profit out of other peoples work without paying them.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A lot of these comments are missing a large point which is that, if the claim is true, the books are being pirated and then effectively used for a commercial application.

So the authors are losing money through this process and did not give their permission for their work to be used in a commercial way.

The decision of this case will be wildly important for the development of AI.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Now that's interesting. I really have been waiting for something like this. Wonder if the LLM companies now actually have to explain where their models get the detailed information about the book from. Or if they can get away with stating that they have no idea how their own system works

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

It is legal to create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. They don't have a leg to stand on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My pie in the sky hope is that copyright somehow becomes less stringent after all of this.

Don't get me wrong I want protections for creators and support reasonable copyright (life of the author +25 years with the possibility of a 15 year extension) but letting a company lord over an IP for damn near a century isn't ideal for anyone.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The major scenario that I at least hope holds true out of this is that the AI "creations" aren't eligible for copyright themselves. If the powers that be allow all this AI created stuff copyright protection it's going to be a gigantic mess.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

If they're being trained via Library Genesis and Z-Library, shouldn't those be the target of the suit for enabling/allowing that?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I tested by asking ChatGPT 3.5 specific questions about The Bedwetter, and it seems like it was not trained on the full text of the book. I asked it what is the first sentence, and then what is the second paragraph, and it gave plausible but incorrect answers. I asked it for the table of contents, and then if a specific chapter was in the book, and it said "my responses are generated based on pre-existing data and do not have real-time access to specific book content". I asked who wrote the foreward, and who wrote the afterward. It said Patton Oswalt wrote the foreward and that there is no afterward. In reality, Sarah wrote the foreward and God wrote the afterward.

ChatGPT conversation
Table of contents and first chapter from Google Books.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

LLMs compress data, there’s no way ChatGPT could remember every detail of the book alongside all the other information it stores in its encodings. The issue isn’t whether the entire text of the book is contained within the encodings, it’s whether it was trained on the book in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lawyers goings to have lots of gigs these days

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If they first don't get fired for using ChatGPT and not double-checking the results.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess she found a way to make money on a book nobody is buying after all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›