Comment on [deleted]

• FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  That’s quite a claim, I’d like to see that. Just give me the prompt and model that will generate an entire Harry Potter book so I can check it out.

  I doubt that this is the case as one of the features of chatbots is the randomization of the next token which is done by treating the model’s output vector as a, softmaxxed, distribution. That means that every single token has a chance to deviate from the source material because it is selected randomly. In order to get a complete reproduction it would be of a similar magnitude as winning 250,000 dice rolls in a row.

  ---

  In any case, the ‘highly transformative’ standard was set in Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015). In that case Google made digital copies of tens of millions of books and used their covers and text to make Google Books.

  As you can see here: www.google.com/books/edition/…/uomkEAAAQBAJ where Google completely reproduces the cover and you can search the text of the book (so you could, in theory, return the entire book in searches). You could actually return a copy of a Harry Potter novel (and a high resolution scan, or even exact digital copy of the cover image).

  The judge ruled:

  Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.

  In cases where people attempt to claim copyright damages against entities that are training AI, the finding is essentially ‘if they paid for a copy of the book then it is legal’. This is why Meta lost their case against authors, in that case they were sued for 1.) Pirating the books and 2.) Using them to train a model for commercial purposes. The judge struck 2.) after citing the ‘highly transformative’ nature of language models vs books.

  source

  • Repelle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671

    source

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This is the same study as the other reply, so same response.

      source

      • ch00f@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Not it isn’t. Read.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ch00f@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That’s quite a claim, I’d like to see that.

    arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671

    source

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671

      lemmy.world/post/42628249/21949167

      source

      • ch00f@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        That study is six months old. The one I linked is from three weeks ago.

        source
  • MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Just give me the prompt and model that will generate an entire Harry Potter book so I can check it out.

    Start with the first line of the book (enough that it won’t be confused with other material in the training set…) the LLM will return some of the next line. Feed it that and it will return some of what comes next, rinse, lather, repeat - researchers have gotten significant chunks of novels regurgitated this way.

    source

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Start with the first line of the book (enough that it won’t be confused with other material in the training set…) the LLM will return some of the next line. Feed it that and it will return some of what comes next, rinse, lather, repeat - researchers have gotten significant chunks of novels regurgitated this way.

      This doesn’t seem to be working as you’re describing.

      Image

      Image

      Image

      Image

      Image

      source

      • MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        That’s what I read in the article - the “researchers” may have had other interfaces they were using. Also, since that “research” came out, I suspect the models have compensated to prevent the appearance of copying…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Giloron@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It was Meta and only 42%.

    arstechnica.com/…/study-metas-llama-3-1-can-recal…

    source

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      arstechnica.com/…/study-metas-llama-3-1-can-recal…

      The claim was “Yet most AI models can recite entire Harry Potter books if prompted the right way, so that’s all bullshit.”

      In this test they did not get a model to produce an entire book with the right prompt.

      Their measurement was considered successful if it could reproduce 50 tokens (so, less than 50 words) at a time.

      The study authors took 36 books and divided each of them into overlapping 100-token passages. Using the first 50 tokens as a prompt, they calculated the probability that the next 50 tokens would be identical to the original passage. They counted a passage as “memorized” if the model had a greater than 50 percent chance of reproducing it word for word.

      Even then, they didn’t ACTUALLY generate these, they even admit that it would not be feasible to generate some of these 50 token (which is, at most 50 words, by the way) sequences:

      the authors estimated that it would take more than 10 quadrillion samples to exactly reproduce some 50-token sequences from some books. Obviously, it wouldn’t be feasible to actually generate that many outputs.

      source

      • NostraDavid@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The claim was “Yet most AI models can recite entire Harry Potter books if prompted the right way, so that’s all bullshit.”

        In this test they did not get a model to produce an entire book with the right prompt.

        For context: These two sentences are 46 Tokens/210 Characters, as per platform.openai.com/tokenizer.

        50 tokens is just about two sentences. This comment is about 42 tokens itself.

        source
• MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  You may not have photographic memory, but dozens of flesh and blood humans do. Are they “illegal” to exist? They can read a book then recite it back to you.

  source

  • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Those are human beings not machines. You are comparing a flesh and blood person to a suped up autocorrect program that is fed data and regurgites it back.

    source