Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not

• LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I suppose someone could develop an LLM that digests textbooks, and rewords the text and spits it back out. Then distribute it for free page for page. You can’t copy right the math problems I don’t think… so if the text wording is what gives it credence, that would have been changed.

  source

  • WraithGear@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    If a human did that it’s still plagiarism.

    source

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Oh I agree it should be, but following the judges ruling, I don’t see how it could be. You trained an LLM on textbooks that were purchased, not pirated. And the LLM distributed the response

      source

      • WraithGear@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Yes, on the second part. Just rearranging or replacing words in a text is not transformative, which is a requirement. There is an argument that the ‘AI’ are capable of doing transformative work, but the tokenizing and weight process is not magic and in my use of multiple LLM’s they do not have an understanding of the material any more then a dictionary understands the material printed on its pages.

        An example was the wine glass problem. Art ‘AI’s were unable to display a wine glass filled to the top. No matter how it was prompted, or what style it aped, it would fail to do so and report back that the glass was full. But it could render a full glass of water. It didn’t understand what a full glass was, not even for the water. How was this possible? Well there was very little art of a full wine glass, because society has an unspoken rule that a full wine glass out the epitome of gluttony, and it is to be savored not drunk. Where as the reference s I full glasses of water were abundant. It doesn’t know what full means, just that pictures of full glass of water are tied to phrases full, glass, and water.

        source

        • -> View More Comments