| |
| ▲ | spwa4 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm pretty sure we would know if they did that. And we don't. Plus this is not legal in the EU (and Canada, and ... let's just say the entire rest of the world, and accept that I'll be wrong for one or two smaller countries). Doesn't that matter? Or is only Mistral disallowed from training on copyrighted materials? Je veux ma chaton fat, goddamit! | | |
| ▲ | yorwba 2 days ago | parent [-] | | AI companies legally acquiring books have indeed been in the news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49330742 And where are you getting the idea that Mistral doesn't train on copyrighted data? There's not a lot of code written by people who've been dead for more than 70 years, but somehow Mistral has been able to release coding models anyway. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 2 days ago | parent [-] | | But they have been training on copyrighted data since GPT-2 at least. 2019, and that's when it came out, so before that of course. | | |
| ▲ | yorwba 2 days ago | parent [-] | | GPT-2 was trained using data scraped from the web (https://cdn.openai.com/better-language-models/language_model... section 2.1), i.e. copyrighted data provided free of charge to anyone with an internet connection. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You mean very likely the Anna's archive torrent dump because it's MUCH better quality than the general internet and beyond a certain amount of input data (which is a lot, but much less than the internet) the only thing that matters in training is the quality of the data, to the point that now many labs have thousands of people just making and improving essentially school exercises full time? Hell, I know that for one "lab" (kindof AI lab) since 2020 or so has determined wikipedia quality is dropping fast. It was already dropping slowly before that, but now it's getting bad. | | |
| ▲ | yorwba a day ago | parent [-] | | No, I mean the WebText corpus whose construction from 45 million Reddit post with at least 3 karma is described in section 2.1 of the PDF I linked. They did remove all Wikipedia documents. Anna's Archive didn't exist in 2019. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tygon 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder if anyone has run the numbers on what the actual cost, both in cash and logistical headache, contacting so many copyright holders would be. That seems like quite the feat to calculate. | | |
| ▲ | yorwba 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's an established network of intermediaries that can supply a large variety of books for a few dollars apiece, so no need to contact copyright holders directly. | | |
| ▲ | tygon 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is very true. As someone with quite the experience with materials published under Penguin, Scholastic, etc. you effectively have a "dictionary attack" on the matter, rather than true "brute force," but that still leaves quite a list to compile to send to each and is easier for larger titles than smaller ones. I wonder how that leads to a bias in what materials get used for training. You are not getting many local self-published books this way. It is almost like we need a "for use for training" agreement across the board. This would not fix the current issues (at least without substantial work), but going forward would allow for creators (or publishers/rights holders) such as this to designate a work as crawl-able for AI. A robots.txt just for Claude. |
| |
| ▲ | ungut a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | According to the US Chamber of commerce the US exports over 270 billion dollars.
https://www.uschamber.com/intellectual-property/unlocking-cr... | |
| ▲ | ungut 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn't really matter. The incentive structure to steal clearly exists, so why would they even go through the trouble? |
| |
| ▲ | ungut 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pretty easy to assertain that they don't acquire them legally due to the plethora of evidence and court cases against them. No copyright holder would be sueing them if they knew they sold the works in the first place. I always wonder why y'all feel the need for these impressive mental gymnastics. You can use the models /and/ think they are trained unethically. Living through the ambiguity without abandoning your ideals completely is a valuable skill these days. | | |
| ▲ | yorwba 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not aware of any successful accusations against OpenAI for illegally obtaining copyrighted material, in contrast to Anthropic, who settled for $3000 per work and then still had to buy legal copies to keep using them (likely for much less). Instead, the ongoing lawsuits focus on the idea that AI training involves making additional copies, for which they would need a copyright license instead of just one legal copy. | | |
| ▲ | ungut 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You are kind of right, but you also did not look very hard. They deleted huge datasets in anticipation of lawsuits, at least that much is known.
Of course plaintiffs were unable to depose their internal lawyers (who apparently know why they were frantically deleted) due to 'attourney client priviledge' further refusing to provide any kind of transparency. But yeah, I guess they are they are better at covering their tracks and destroying evidence. Also, as one more example, I find it hard to believe that their models could generate 'Studio Ghibli' style images without training on the movies. There is no licensing deal between them. I think the real issues here are two-fold: Firstly, Copyright is very ill equipped to handle these cases. Just because the model is tuned not to output the exact training data does not mean that compressing mostly-copyrighted datasets into a proprietary model is ethical, fair or /should/ be allowed, simply because they might destroy entire livelihoods. If you take those copyrighted works away you are left with, in OpenAIs own words, a cute little experiment. Secondly, there is absolutely no transparency. Datasets are easily deleted and its impossible to tell what the models have been trained on, especially after fine tuning. Moreover, only the biggest most successfull works would be easily identifiable without the fine tuned model. Once again, sticking it to the little man. |
|
|
|
