Hacker News Reader

Comment by llm_trw | Hacker News Reader

The word you're looking for is copyright enfrignment.

That's the secret sause that every good model uses.

Humanity keeps running into copyright issues with every major leap in IT technology (photocopiers, tape cassettes, personal computers, internet, and now AI). I think it's about time for humanity to rethink their take on the unnatural restriction of information.

I personally hope that countries recognize copyright and patents for what they really are and abolish them. Countries that refuse to do so can play catch up.

Since all kinds of companies are getting a lot of money from the generative AI business, I think they can handle being sued for plagiarism if thats the content they produce.

This is based on a flawed view of how we humans behave. Without incentive no effort. This is also the reason why socialism has and always will fail. People who put massive effort in creating original content need to be able to earn the rewards.

The premise, that forgoing copyright would necessitate the forgoing of incentives and rewards, is one entirely of your own assertion and was not implied in my above comment. I agree that your assertion is flawed.

There can be, and are, incentives and rewards associated with sharing information without flawed artificial constraints like copyright.

It will be interesting if a significant jurisdiction's copyright law is some day changed to treat LLM training as copying. In a lot of places, previous behaviour can't be retroactively outlawed[1]. So older LLMs will be much more capable than post-change ones.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Even if you can't be punished retroactively for previous behavior, continuing to benefit from it can be outlawed. In other words, it would be compatible from a legal perspective to ban the use of LLMs that were trained in violation of copyright law.

Given the political landscape I doubt that's going to happen, though.

The part where a python script ingested the books is not the infringing step, it's when they downloaded the books in the first place.

True, and likely lots of other data that should not have been used to train a model.

It is at this point hard to imagine a model that is good at reasoning that doesn't also have vast implicit "knowledge".

since all models are treating human knowledge as copyright free (as they should) no this is not at all what this new Chinese model is about

Oh. Does that ethics framework also extend to art such as music, movies and software?

fires up BitTorrent

Reply on news.ycombinator.com