how about they become a therapist and sell access to knowledge from copyrighted books? should that be an infringement?
what if they sell access to lectures they've given including facts from said book(s) to millions of people?
it's understandable that people feel threatened by these technologies, but to a great degree the work of a successful artist is to understand and meet the desires of an audience. LLMs and image generation tech do not do this. they simply streamline the production
of course if you've worked for years to become a graphic designer you're going to be annoyed that an AI can do your job for you, but this is simply what happens when technology moves forward. no one today mourns the loss of scribes to the printing press. the artists in control of their own destiny - i.e. making their own creative decisions - will not, can not, be affected by these models, unless they refuse to adapt to the times
For now? I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes the next feature though.
it's just the instagram/tiktok/youtube suggested content algorithms
can you explain to me specifically how they're different?
can you explain to me how they're different to the degree that making an analogy between the two is "disingenuous to the extreme"?
Legally quite distinct! Note that nobody is even seriously claiming we have an AGI, there's no Star Trek discussion of whether an android is a person. Everyone agrees this is just a computer program.
Try reading this legal opinion: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53...
It used to be that when people bought a piece of land they owned that land from the center of the Earth to the end of the Universe. When planes were invented the laws on who owned the skies had to change or planes wouldn't work.
It's the same here, but in reverse. If LLMs aren't prohibited from learning without permission then people will be forced to hide their works.
I see multiple questions raised by this suit. Were copyrighted works being illegally stored and distributed by certain sources? Of course they are. Were these illegal sources accessed by the trainers and used to obtain copyrighted works which are not otherwise available for no charge on the public Internet? Are substantial and reproducible copies of these copyrighted works retained within the bowels of the LLM neural nets? Is the LLM able to answer prompts in a way that it would never be able to do, had the copyrighted material not been ingested?
I see the lawsuit addressing several questions at once, and so even a resolution of this suit itself will leave questions unanswered and needing to be kicked upstairs to higher jurisdictions.
Let me ask another question to point out the absurdity of yours: Human beings have more in common with a bacterium than a software program. Can you tell me specifically how humans are not bacteria?
now remember that this is an analogy. re-read my comments in this light and perhaps we can continue this conversation in a more grounded and reasonable manner
however, I'll be frank: have you studied neural networks? if you haven't, it's very difficult to take you seriously on this
Yes I have studied neural nets and have a good understanding of their function. I am still not sure how, despite their development being inspired by animal brains, you can liken an LLM to an actual person. There are so many vast differences. Do you really want me to explain specially what they are? Surely, since both you and I are so familiar with the subject matter, that is unnecessary.
If we were taking about an AGI then this would be an entirely different conversation.
if you want to discuss whether it is a poor analogy or not, I'm all for that, but the passage you've chosen to go down is to act as if it were not an analogy at all, which—to borrow a phrase—is disingenuous to the extreme
You are confused. Neural networks are inspired by how brains work, but they do not actually simulate brains.
Airplanes are also inspired by how birds work, but (presumably) you don't think that bird laws should apply to airplanes.
> can you explain to me how they're different to the degree that making an analogy between the two is "disingenuous to the extreme"?
It's disingenuous because you don't believe that either.
If you think that LLMs are just like human brains, and should be allowed to learn from books the same as people, then presumably you also believe they are entitled to all other human rights: to vote, to live, &c. If you operate an LLM and you shut it down then that's murder and you belong in jail.
what do you think an analogy is? do you think an analogy is something where the thing itself and its metaphor are "just like" each other, or do they share attributes for illustrative purposes?
would you agree that LLMs and humans share the attributes of information retention and contextual reproduction?
Not really. Only if if talking an ornithopter. Otherwise they're based off Bernolli's equations.
>You are confused. Neural networks are inspired by how brains work, but they do not actually simulate brains.
Non-sequitur. They never claimed it was simulating a human brain, merely that it was engaging in an analogus process of information encoding/decoding.
> how about they become a therapist and sell access
> what if they sell access to lectures
I fully agree. But in all of your examples someone is purchasing the right to access the information in question. Did Meta or OpenAI purchase the books (or lectures) with the intention of feeding them into the training for their respective LLM's?
however, in the analogy the books could have been read for free from a library
The uploader might be breaking the law but not the downloader that stores the copyrighted material on levy-paid media.
I’ve heard inklings of this argument in Canada but can’t figure out what the current state of the art is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada
Then is a corporation’s internal use for the purpose of analysis considered “private use”? If there’s no redistribution/broadcasting, is it still non-commercial?
A search engine that indexes the internet might be equally liable at that point, although the DCMA gives them an out if they have a mechanism to remove pirated entries from their index on request. Could LLMs have the same out?