Authors using a new tool to search a list of 183,000 books used to train AI are furious to find their works on the list.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 94 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (14 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'd say they should have to follow the most-restrictive license of all of their training data, and that existing CC/FOSS licenses don't count because they were designed for use in a pre-LLM world.

    It seems like a pretty reasonable request. But people like free stuff, and when they think about who will get screwed by this they like to imagine that they're sticking it to the biggest publishers of mass media.

    But IRL, those publishers are giddy with the idea that instead of scouting artists and bullying them into signing over their IP, they can just summon IP on demand.

    The people who will suffer are the independents who refused to sign over their IP. They never got their payday, and now they never will either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago*

    The people I’m seeing outraged are artists and authors who did not sign their ideas over for public access or for disingenuous use. not a faceless publisher with cloth bags and dollar signs painted on them. Also I don’t think you understand what public and private ownership means. A person is allowed to privately own their own creation. They don’t owe that to the world. The world isn’t entitled to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 52 points 3 years ago* (17 children)

    Here's an idea, legally force companies like OpenAI to rely on opt-in data, rather then build their entire company on stealing massive amounts of data. That includes requiring to retrain from scratch. Sam Altman was crying for regulations for scary AI, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (16 children)

    Would search engines only be allowed to show search results for sources that had opted in? They "train" their search engine on public data too, after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    They aren't reselling their information, they're linking you to the source which then the website decides what to do with your traffic. Which they usually want your traffic, that's the point of a public site.

    That's like trying to say it's bad to point to where a book store is so someone can buy from it. Whereas the LLM is stealing from that bookstore and selling it to you in a back alley.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 50 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This is no different than every other capitalist enterprise. The whole system works on taking a public resource, claiming private ownership of it, and then selling it back to the public for profit.

    First it was farmland, then coal and minerals, oil, seafood, and now ideas. Its how the system works and is the whole reason people have been trying to stop it for the past 150 years.

    The people making the laws are there because they and/or their parents and/or grandparents did the exact same thing. As despicable and corrupt as it is you won't change it by complaining and no-one is going to make a law to stop it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago

    God damned right. Every "new" thing tends to be stolen. In more event history, its stolen from other capital, or from innovation with a free license, rather than artwork. Publishers might actually be able to make a problem out of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago (70 children)

    I certainly hope that none of these authors have ever read a book before or have been inspired by something written by another author.

  • source
  • hideshow 70 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 3 years ago (25 children)

    That would be a much better comparison if it was artificial intelligence, but these are just reinforcement learning models. They do not get inspired.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (21 children)

    just reinforcement learning models

    ...like the naturally occuring neural networks are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    The brain does not work the way you think… (I work in the field, bio-informatics). What you call “neural networks” come from an early misunderstanding of how the brain stores information. It’s a LOT more complicated and frankly, barely understood.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    Tell you what, you get a landmark legal decision classifying LLM as people and then we'll talk.

    Until then it's software being fed content in a way not permitted by its license i.e. the makers of that software committing copyright infringement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago* (10 children)

    What exactly was not permitted by the license? Reading?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    Using it to (create a tool to) create derivatives of the work on a massive scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    Wikipedia: In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work.

    I think you may be off a bit on what a derivative work is. I don't see LLMs spouting out major copyrightable elements of books. They can give a summary sure, but Cliff Notes would like to have a word if you think that's copyright infringement.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago* (14 children)

    That's an interesting take, I didn't know software could be inspired by other people's works. And here I thought software just did exactly as it's instructed to do. These are language models. They were given data to train those models. Did they pay for the data that they used to train for it, or did they scrub the internet and steal all these books along with everything everyone else has said?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 25 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    I hope they can at least get compensated.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Ok so it’s been stealing art now it’s coming for authors. At what point do we hold the coalition who started this shit culpable for numerous accounts of plagiarism?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Curious if the AI company actually bought those books or if they just came across them by pirating.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    There's an idea by Barath Raghavan about an AI dividend that companies pay each netizen a share for the data they use to train these models.

    I am into this idea if companies can't even do a simple opt-in mechanism.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›