Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books
Technology
54
Beiträge
31
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
What, how is this a win? Three authors lost a lawsuit to an AI firm using their works.
The lawsuit would not have benefitted their fellow authors but their publishing houses and the big ai companies.
-
Yeah, I guess the debate is which is the lesser evil. I didn't make the original comment but I think this is what they were getting at.
Yes precisely.
I don't see a situation where the actual content creators get paid.
We either get open source ai, or we get closed ai where the big ai companies and copyright companies make bank.
I think people are having huge knee jerk reactions and end up supporting companies like Disney, Universal Music and Google.
-
Keep in mind this isn't about open-weight vs other AI models at all. This is about how training data can be collected and used.
Because of the vast amount of data needed, there will be no competitive viable open source solution if half the data is kept in a walled garden.
This is about open weights vs closed weights.
-
If they can just steal a creator's work, how do they suppose creators will be able to afford continuing to be creators?
Right. They think we have enough original works that the machines can just make any new creations.
The companies like record studio who already own all the copyrights aren't going to pay creators for something they already owned.
All the data has already been signed away. People are really optimistic about an industry that has consistently fucked everyone they interact with for money.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I hate AI with a fire that keeps we warm at night. That is all.
-
Is it this?
First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16).
That's the judge addressing an argument that the Authors made. If anyone made a "false equivalence" here it's the plaintiffs, the judge is simply saying "okay, let's assume their claim is true." As is the usual case for a preliminary judgment like this.
Page 6 the judge writes the LLM “memorized” the content and could “recite” it.
Neither is true in training or use of LLMs
-
That "freely" there really does a lot of hard work.
It means what it means, "freely" pulls its own weight. I didn't say "readily" accessible. Torrents could be viewed as "readily" accessible but it couldn't be viewed as "freely" accessible because at the very least you bear the guilt of theft. Library books are "freely" accessible, and if somehow the training involved checking out books and returning them digitally, it should be fine. If it is free to read into neurons it is free to read into neural systems. If payment for reading is expected then it isn't free.
-
To anyone who is reading this comment without reading through the article. This ruling doesn't mean that it's okay to pirate for building a model. Anthropic will still need to go through trial for that:
But he rejected Anthropic's request to dismiss the case, ruling the firm would have to stand trial over its use of pirated copies to build its library of material.
I also read through the judgement, and I think it's better for anthropic than you describe. He distinguishes three issues:
A) Use any written material they get their hands on to train the model (and the resulting model doesn't just reproduce the works).
B) Buy a single copy of a print book, scan it, and retain the digital copy for a company library (for all sorts of future purposes).
C) Pirate a book and retain that copy for a company library (for all sorts of future purposes).
A and B were fair use by summary judgement. Meaning this judge thinks it's clear cut in anthropics favor. C will go to trial.
-
Page 6 the judge writes the LLM “memorized” the content and could “recite” it.
Neither is true in training or use of LLMs
Depends on the content and the method. There are tons of ways to encrypt data, and under relevant law they may still count as copies. There are certainly weaker NN models where we can extract a lot of the training data, even if it's not easy, from the model parameters (even if we can't find a prompt that gets the model to regurgitate).
-
IMO the focus should have always been on the potential for AI to produce copyright-violating output, not on the method of training.
Plantifs made that argument and the judge shoots it down pretty hard. That competition isn't what copyright protects from. He makes an analogy with teachers teaching children to write fiction: they are using existing fantasy to create MANY more competitors on the fiction market. Could an author use copyright to challenge that use?
Would love to hear your thoughts on the ruling itself (it's linked by reuters).
-
It means what it means, "freely" pulls its own weight. I didn't say "readily" accessible. Torrents could be viewed as "readily" accessible but it couldn't be viewed as "freely" accessible because at the very least you bear the guilt of theft. Library books are "freely" accessible, and if somehow the training involved checking out books and returning them digitally, it should be fine. If it is free to read into neurons it is free to read into neural systems. If payment for reading is expected then it isn't free.
Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe.
-
I also read through the judgement, and I think it's better for anthropic than you describe. He distinguishes three issues:
A) Use any written material they get their hands on to train the model (and the resulting model doesn't just reproduce the works).
B) Buy a single copy of a print book, scan it, and retain the digital copy for a company library (for all sorts of future purposes).
C) Pirate a book and retain that copy for a company library (for all sorts of future purposes).
A and B were fair use by summary judgement. Meaning this judge thinks it's clear cut in anthropics favor. C will go to trial.
C could still bankrupt the company depending on how trial goes. They pirated a lot of books.
-
Because books are used to train both commercial and open source language models?
used to train both commercial
commercial training is, in this case, stealing people's work for commercial gain
and open source language models
so, uh, let us train open-source models on open-source text. There's so much of it that there's no need to steal.
?
I'm not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.
-
Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe.
But they are copyright infringement, which costs more than theft.
-
Because of the vast amount of data needed, there will be no competitive viable open source solution if half the data is kept in a walled garden.
This is about open weights vs closed weights.
They haven't dewalled the garden yet. The copyright infringement part of the case will continue.
-
What, how is this a win? Three authors lost a lawsuit to an AI firm using their works.
It would harm the A.I. industry if Anthropic loses the next part of the trial on whether they pirated books — from what I’ve read, Anthropic and Meta are suspected of getting a lot off torrent sites and the like.
It’s possible they all did some piracy in their mad dash to find training material but Amazon and Google have bookstores and Google even has a book text search engine, Google Scholar, and probably everything else already in its data centers. So, not sure why they’d have to resort to piracy.
-
C could still bankrupt the company depending on how trial goes. They pirated a lot of books.
As a civil matter, the publishing houses are more likely to get the full money if anthropic stays in business (and does well). So it might be bad, but I'm really skeptical about bankruptcy (and I'm not hearing anyone seriously floating it?)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Anakin: “Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books”
Padme: “But they’ll be held accountable when they reproduce parts of those works or compete with the work they were trained on, right?”
Anakin: “…”
Padme: “Right?” -
Because of the vast amount of data needed, there will be no competitive viable open source solution if half the data is kept in a walled garden.
This is about open weights vs closed weights.
I agree that we need open-source and emancipate ourselves. The main issue I see is: The entire approach doesn't work. I'd like to give the internet as an example. It's meant to be very open, connect everyone and enable them to share information freely. It is set up to be a level playing field... Now look what that leads to. Trillion dollar mega-corporations, privacy issues everywhere and big data silos. That's what the approach promotes. I agree with the goal. But in my opinion the approach will turn out to lead to less open source and more control by rich companies. And that's not what we want.
Plus nobody even opens the walled gardes. Last time I looked, Reddit wanted money for data. Other big platforms aren't open either. And there's kind of a small war going on with the scrapers and crawlers and anti-measures. So it's not as if it's open as of now.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Pirate everything!
