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

• SufferingSteve@feddit.nu ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The “if” is working overtime in your statement

  source
• nednobbins@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I’d say there are two issues with it.

  FIrst, it’s a very new article with only 3 citations. The authors seem like serious researchers but the paper itself is still in the, “hot off the presses” stage and wouldn’t qualify as “proven” yet.

  It also doesn’t exactly say that books are copies. It says that in some models, it’s possible to extract some portions of some texts. They cite “1984” and “Harry Potter” as two books that can be extracted almost entirely, under some circumstances. They also find that, in general, extraction rates are below 1%.

  source

  • vane@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yeah but it’s just a start to reverse the process and prove that there is no AI. We only started with generating text I bet people figure out how to reverse process by using some sort of Rosetta stone. It’s just probabilities after all.

    source

    • nednobbins@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      That’s possible but it’s not what the authors found.

      They spend a fair amount of the conclusion emphasizing how exploratory and ambiguous their findings are. The researchers themselves are very careful to point out that this is not a smoking gun.

      source

      • vane@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Yeah authors rely on the recent deep mind paper aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.469.pdf ( they even cite it ) that describes (n, p)-discoverable extraction. This is recent studies because right now there are no boundaries, basically people made something and now they study their creation. We’re probably years from something like gdpr for llm.

        source