Given numerous individuals are paid to engineer prompts, appears so, regardless of how common it is as a specific role.
6,259 karma · joined January 5, 2022
https://www.google.com/search?q=url+parameter+(vulnerability...
Anyone more familiar with the project able to speculate why they’re not including core contributors prior to Sushi 2.0?
___
Surprised core contributors would have publicly identified themselves, since even without any legal liability, to me it puts a huge target on their back given the leverage they have over the project assuming they have ability to commit code that is then distributed to the DAO.
You’re wrong, there’s a material and significant amount of copyrighted material related to LLaMa which is critical to running it. If you’re so confident it’s legal, feel free to link to a guide on how to LLaMa that uses the only materials originally provided by Facebook so it’s possible to assess the system’s dependencies on legally protected materials. Next, feel free to link to build that is not bound to any property claims by Facebook.
>> If you didn't sign the contract or induce the breach then it isn't relevant
Again, this is not true, that’s property laundering; see above comments, repeating points I have already made will not add to this discussion. If anything is unclear, let me know, but claim that party is not bound to an agreement related to legally protected property (not referring to the weights) if they launder it is obviously invalid, since if it was, no property for which the terms of use were separable from the property itself would be enforced; again, party would receive a cease and desist with a copy of the terms of use.
>> That's a non-argument. Everything is ultimately up to the courts despite the letter of the law.
No, if a legally it’s material. There is a massive difference between clean-room reverse engineering a systems from property that’s free from any claims — and referencing materials that are subject to claims to build a new system. Further, it is my position it is impossible to do a clean-room build in this situation. As a result, the only way anyone would have any confidence that a new system was free from material claims is as a result of a ruling.
____
Beyond the prior points above, worth noting Facebook has already begun taking legal actions against developers related to LLaMa leak, so it’s clear they have no intention of releasing the weight for commercial use. Here’s an example:
Point is unless the new system only references the property that’s free of any claims, there’s at the very least a valid legal basis to file a complaint and it would at that point be in the courts hands to decide whether the contracts or copyrights had been breached.
>> Not at all. I can refer to pages and words in a book I don't own.
It depends, the only way for this for sure not to be the case is for the author of the code to have never seen the relevant code. At the point they have seen the code, it would be up to the courts to decide the merits of the arguments presented in court.
>> Only if the weights are copyrightable.
Weights are irrelevant, what is relevant is any aspect of the system that is subject to the related terms of use and/or copyright.
>> There's no breach of contract because there was no agreement.
No, this is property laundering. If intentional, it’s a crime. If unintentional, the property owner need just notify the party of their rights, the remedy they’re seeking, and if needed, send a cease and desist.
Beyond that, it’s unclear to me if there is code that is part of LLaMa that’s not subject to copyright claims, if such code was authored by humans. Someone violating the terms, downloading the code, and reposting it, even without the terms, would be irrelevant to the rights of the party on future use by a party if they notified they’re infringing; otherwise, able copyright notices and software licenses would be meaningless, because you could simple launder stolen property, which is obviously not the case. If you’re positive there no copyrighted materials used in deploying LLaMa, then obviously there’s no copyright claim or breach of contract. To be clear, I agree human author per the US Copyright Office is at present required to claim copyrights.
Lastly, my core claim is it’s easy to state something is legal, it’s completely different story to take on legal liabilities related to defending those rights. I for one would have no interest in litigation with Facebook regardless of the legal merits of my position. The OP based on there ignoring the topic, which I raised, nor for that matter is it likely anyone that read this thread is likely to take on the burden of publicly disputing if LLaMa is free from legal claims for commercial use.
What you have failed to do though is address that if: there been a breach of contract; laundering the property as a means of separating the current use of the related property from its original terms is legal pretext including if party receives notice of the terms directly from Facebook; and lastly, most importantly, that it is your position that Facebook lacks any legal basis to forbid the commercial use of any of the property it made publicly available in this specific context based on the existing facts of the matter.
Beyond that, in this thread and in the comment you’re replied to, I already established legal basis for Facebook to contest any use of their property for commercial use as it relates to the topic at hand. Do you understand how contract law works?
Also pointed out that regardless of the presence of an existing precedent either via legal code or case law, Facebook has the legal right to file a legal complaint, have it ruled on, and judges are free to rule as they see fit.
Related comment on the impact of laundering stolen property on legal claims:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35259914
If you disagree, please provide a legal basis to support such claims based on legal code or case law via a response to the comment linked to above.
Even if there was no legal basis, which I disagree with, since as other have pointed out, contracts breach the limits of copyrights — there’s zero reason Facebook would not be able to file a legal complaint and bring the matter to trial. Once at trial, judges are legally allowed to rule as they please, laws are ultimately irrelevant; yes, that ruling might be over turned on appeal and judges do not like to be overturned, but also possible the ruling would stand and become case law.
Any commercial use of Facebook’s LLaMa remains a violation of the software’s terms of use to my understanding; not saying your use is a violation, but that as it relates to anything related to LLaMa there no related commercial use.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247377
Will say that post you linked to also states, “17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of “compilation”). In the case of a compilation including AI-generated material, the computer-generated material will not be protected outside of the compilation.” — the problem is that unlike say for example a compilation of recipes, where the individual recipes are not protected, but the compilation is, there is no clear delineation within a singular work of art such delineation. As such, injecting such delineations is counterproductive and shows no understanding of the nature and spirit of the rule of law. Further, while their opinion appears to be a prompt is somehow a recipe and not a novel expression that merits copyright, clearly photographs of the output of a recipes are commonly photographed and given copyright protection.
Sure others have made far more compelling arguments against the ruling, but to me, the ruling lacks merit as is.
https://dragonflydb.io/blog/scaling-performance-redis-vs-dra...
Basically, you’re not acknowledging both your error messages/notifications have repeatedly been problematic— or that banning users who used the system as designed is wrong.
As is, landscape photographers for example, control camera angle, timing of photograph, camera type, lens type, etc — but they rarely create the landscape itself or for that matter the equipment and related technologies.
Even “found object” art is covered by copyright:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object
At this point, to me, it’s unclear author of that ruling even understands technology used to create the outputs that were the subject of that ruling.
Is anyone aware of any similar open source or services that handle text-to-vector generative AI?
______
As it relates to Doublespeak.chat launch, would it be possible to address the lesson learned related to more operational aspects. I for one lost any interest in engaging you further after you ban accounts for doing something you had not explicitly stated was not allowed without warning or means to adapt to the change; while there was specific event, would not surprise me if in general your approach was to unilaterally make changes that impacted users without any communication prior to or after the changes.
As is, aware of at least two modifications unrelated to the game itself, but related to the system running it, that are not mentioned in the change logs:
https://doublespeak.chat/#/changelog
And twice I have experienced the system generate fail to display an error in a specific context when there’s clearly logic under the hood blocking users path.