It has long been recognised that the state of the art in data compression has much in common with the state of the art in AI, for example:

http://prize.hutter1.net/

https://bellard.org/nncp/

▲

ddtaylor 9 days ago | parent [-]

Some view these as so interconnected that they will say LLMs are "just" compression.

▲

pjc50 8 days ago | parent [-]

Which is an interesting view when applied to the IP. I think it's relatively uncontroversial that an MP4 file which "predicts" a Disney movie which it was "trained on" is a derived work. Suppose you have an LLM which was trained on a fairly small set of movies and you could produce any one on demand; would that be treated as a derived work?

If you have a predictor/compressor LLM which was trained on all the movies in the world, would that not also be infringement?

	▲	mr_toad 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		MP4s are compressed data, not a compression algorithm. An MP4 (or any compressed data) is not a “prediction”, it is the difference between what was predicted and what you’re trying to compress. An LLM is (or can be used) as a compression algorithm, but it is not compressed data. It is possible to have an overfit algorithm exactly predict (or reproduce) an output, but it’s not possible for one to reproduce all the outputs due to the pigeonhole principle. To reiterate - LLMs are not compressed data.