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.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If I memorize the text of Harry Potter, my brain does not thereby become a copyright infringement.

    A copyright infringement only occurs if I then reproduce that text, e.g. by writing it down or reciting it in a public performance.

    Training an LLM from a corpus that includes a piece of copyrighted material does not necessarily produce a work that is legally a derivative work of that copyrighted material. The copyright status of that LLM’s “brain” has not yet been adjudicated by any court anywhere.

    If the developers have taken steps to ensure that the LLM cannot recite copyrighted material, that should count in their favor, not against them. Calling it “hiding” is backwards.

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You are a human, you are allowed to create derivative works under the law. Copyright law as it relates to machines regurgitating what humans have created is fundamentally different. Future legislation will have to address a lot of the nuance of this issue.

    • UnculturedSwine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another sensationalist title. The article makes it clear that the problem is users reconstructing large portions of a copyrighted work word for word. OpenAI is trying to implement a solution that prevents ChatGPT from regurgitating entire copyrighted works using “maliciously designed” prompts. OpenAI doesn’t hide the fact that these tools were trained using copyrighted works and legally it probably isn’t an issue.

    • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Google took samples from millions of different songs that were under copyright and created a website that allowed users to mix them together into new songs, they would be sued into oblivion before you could say “unauthorized reproduction.”

      You simply cannot compare one single person memorizing a book to corporations feeding literally millions of pieces of copyrighted material into a blender and acting like the resulting sausage is fine because “only a few rats fell into the vat, what’s the big deal”

          • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The analogy talks about mixing samples of music together to make new music, but that’s not what is happening in real life.

            The computers learn human language from the source material, but they are not referencing the source material when creating responses. They create new, original responses which do not appear in any of the source material.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Learn” is debatable in this usage. It is trained on data and the model creates a set of values that you can apply that produce an output similar to human speach. It’s just doing math though. It’s not like a human learns. It doesn’t care about context or meaning or anything else.

              • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay, but in the context of this conversation about copyright I don’t think the learning part is as important as the reproduction part.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Google crawls every link available on all websites to index and give to people. That’s a better example. Which is legal and up to the websites to protect their stuff

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not a problem that it reads something. The problem is the thing that it produces should break copyright. Google search is not producing something, it reads everything to link you to that original copyrighted work. If it read it and then just spit out what’s read on its own, instead of sending you to the original creators, that wouldn’t be OK.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The blurb it puts out in the search results is much more directly “spitting out what’s read” than anything an LLM does. As are most other srts of results that appear on the front page of a google search.

    • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s not pretend that LLMs are like people where you’d read a bunch of books and draw inspiration from them. An LLM does not think nor does it have an actual creative process like we do. It should still be a breach of copyright.

      • efstajas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        … you’re getting into philosophical territory here. The plain fact is that LLMs generate cohesive text that is original and doesn’t occur in their training sets, and it’s very hard if not impossible to get them to quote back copyrighted source material to you verbatim. Whether you want to call that “creativity” or not is up to you, but it certainly seems to disqualify the notion that LLMs commit copyright infringement.

        • Snorf@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This topic is fascinating.

          I really do think i understand both sides here and want to find the hard line that seperates man from machine.

          But it feels, to me, that some philosophical discussion may be required. Art is not something that is just manufactured. “Created” is the word to use without quotation marks. Or maybe not, i don’t know…

        • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wasn’t referring to whether the LLM commits copyright infringement when creating a text (though that’s an interesting topic as well), but rather the act of feeding it the texts. My point was that it is not like us in a sense that we read and draw inspiration from it. It’s just taking texts and digesting them. And also, from a privacy standpoint, I feel kind of disgusted at the thought of LLMs having used comments such as these ones (not exactly these, but you get it), for this purpose as well, without any sort of permission on our part.

          That’s mainly my issue, the fact that they have done so the usual capitalistic way: it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

          • RedKrieg@lemmy.redkrieg.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you’re putting too much faith in humans here. As best we can tell the only difference between how we compute and what these models do is scale and complexity. Your brain often lies to you and makes up reasoning behind your actions after the fact. We’re just complex networks doing math.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            but rather the act of feeding it the texts.

            Unless you are going to argue the act of feeding it the texts is distributing the original text or doing some kind of public performance of the text, I don’t see how.