• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    But the fact is the LLM was able to spit out the training data. This means that anything in the training data isn’t just copied into the training dataset, allegedly under fair use as research, but also copied into the LLM as part of an active commercial product. Sure, the LLM might break it down and store the components separately, but if an LLM can reassemble it and spit out the original copyrighted work then how is that different from how a photocopier breaks down the image scanned from a piece of paper then reassembles it into instructions for its printer?

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not copied as is, thing is a bit more complicated as was already pointed out

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        But the thing is the law has already established this with people and their memories. You might genuinely not realise you’re plagiarising, but what matters is the similarity of the work produced.

        ChatGPT has copied the data into its training database, then trained off that database, then it runs “independently” of that database - which is how they vaguely argue fair use under the research exemption.

        However if ChatGPT can “remember” its training data and recompile significant portions of it in certain circumstances, then it must be guilty of plagiarism and copyright infringement.

    • Jamie@jamie.moe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Speaking for LLMs, given that they operate on a next-token basis, there will be some statistical likelihood of spitting out original training data that can’t be avoided. The normal counter-argument being that in theory, the odds of a particular piece of training data coming back out intact for more than a handful of words should be extremely low.

      Of course, in this case, Google’s researchers took advantage of the repeat discouragement mechanism to make that unlikelihood occur reliably, showing that there are indeed flaws to make it happen.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        If a person studies a text then writes an article about the same subject as that text while using the same wording and discussing the same points, then it’s plagiarism whether or not they made an exact copy. Surely it should also be the case with LLM’s, which train on the data then inadvertently replicate the data again? The law has already established that it doesn’t matter what the process is for making the new work, what matters is how close it is to the original work.