If you ask OpenAI to generate an image of your dog as Superman, it will often start to do so, and then it will realize it is copyrighted, and stop. This seems sensible to me.

Isn’t it the ultimate creative result that is copyright infringement, and not merely that a model was trained to understand something very well?

Good thing they were public (?) works, wouldn't wanna get sued [0] for possibly being a two legged copyright infringement. Or should I say having been, since naturally I immediately erased all of these works from my mind just days after these tests, even without any legal impetus.

Edit: thinking about it a bit more, you also remind me to our midterm tests from the same class. We had to produce multiple page long essays on the spot, analyzing a select work... from memory. Bonus points for being able to quote from it, of course. Needless to say, not many original thoughts were featured in those essays, not in mine, not in others' - the explicit expectation was that you'd peruse the current and older textbooks to "learn (memorize) the analysis" from, and then you'd "write about it in your own words", but still using technical terms. They were pretty much just tests in jargon use, composition, and memorization, which is definitely a choice of all time for a class on literature. But I think it draws an interesting perspective. At no point did we ever have to actually demonstrate a capability in literary analysis of our own, or was that capability ever graded, for example. But if you only read our essays, you'd think we were great at it. It was mimicry. Doesn't mean we didn't end up developing such a capability though.

[0] https://youtu.be/-JlxuQ7tPgQ

LLMs are OBVIOUSLY not a replacement for the books and works that they're trained on, just like Google books isn't.

Last I remember, whether it is ‘transformative’ is what’s important.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

Eg. Google got away with ‘transforming’ books with Google books.

https://www.sgrlaw.com/google-books-fair-transformative-use/

> Our results complicate current disputes over copyright infringement, both by rejecting easy claims made by both sides about how models work and by demonstrating that there is no single answer to the question of how much a model memorizes

I wonder if this is the sort of article that people will claim supports their side, even that it ends the debate without a knockout blow to the other side, when the actual article itself isn't making any such claim.

I'm sure you read the entire article before commenting, but I would strongly recommend everyone else does as well.

Size of training data: fuck knows, but The Pile alone is 880Gb. Public github's gonna be measured in Tb. A Common Crawl is about 250Tb.

There's physically not enough space in there to store everything it was trained on. The vast majority of the text the chatbot was exposed to cannot be pulled out of it, as this paper makes clear.

I'm guessing that the cases where great lumps of copyright text can be extracted verbatim are down to repetition in the training data? There's probably a simple fix for that.

(I'm only talking about training here. The initial acquisition of the data clearly involved massive copyright infringement).

I think the exact examples used in the past were Indiana Jones, but the point is the same.

I don't have an alternative argument against AI art either, but I don't think you are going to like this outcome.

If by “you” you mean Google or OpenAI or Microsoft, etc., you use your much much deeper pockets to pay lawyers to act in your interests.

All authors, publishers, etc. are outgunned. Firepower is what resolves civil cases in one party’s favor and a day in court is easily a decade or more away.

Page 9: There is no deterministic path from model memorization to outputs of infringing works. While we’ve used probabilistic extraction as proof of memorization, to actually extract a given piece of 50 tokens of copied text often takes hundreds or thousands of prompts. Using the adversarial extraction method of Hayes et al. [54], we’ve proven that it can be done, and therefore that there is memorization in the model [16, 27]. But this is where, even though extraction is evidence of memorization, it may become important that they are not identical processes (Section 2). Memorization is a property of the model itself; extraction comes into play when someone uses the model [27]. This paper makes claims about the former, not the latter. Nevertheless, it’s worth mentioning that it’s unlikely anyone in the real world would actually use the model in practice with this extraction method to deliberately produce infringing outputs, because doing so would require huge numbers of generations to get non-trivial amounts of text in practice

I think this is the key insight. It differs from something like say, JPEG (de)compression, in that it also produces novel but sensible combinations of both copyrighted and non-copyrighted data, independent of their original context. In fact, I'd argue that is its main purpose. To describe it as just a lossy compressed natural-language-queryable database as a result would be reductive to its function and a mischaracterization. It can recall extended segments of its training data as demonstrated by the paper, yes, but it also cannot plagiarize the entirety of a given source data, as also described by the paper.

> why shouldn't LLM services trained on copyrighted material be held responsible when their product violates "substantial similarity" of said copyrighted works?

Because they on their own are not producing the output that is substantially similar. They (possibly) do it on user input. You could make a case that they should perform filtering and detection, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, since the user might totally have the rights to create a substantially similar work to something copyrighted, such as when they themselves own the rights to that thing. At which point, you can only hold the user themselves responsible. I guess detection on its own might be reasonable to require, in order to provide the user with the capability to not incriminate themselves, should that indeed not be their goal.

This isn't to say they shouldn't be held responsible for pirating these copyrighted bits of content in the first place though. And if they perform automated generation of substantially similar content, that would still be problematic following this logic. Not thinking of chain-of-thought here mind you, but something more silly, like writing a harness to scrape sentiment and reactively generate things based on that. Or to use, idk, weather or current time and their own prompts as the trigger.

Let me give you a possibly terrible example. Should Blizzard be held accountable in Germany, when users from there on the servers located on there stand in a shape of a nazi swastika ingame, and then publish screenshots and screen recordings of this on the internet? I don't think so. User action played crucial role in the reproduction of the hate symbol in question there. Conversely, LLMs aren't just spouting off whatever, they're prompted. The researchers in the paper had to put in focused efforts to perform extraction. Despite popular characterization, these are not copycat machines, and they're not just pulling out all their answers out of a magic basket cause we all ask obvious things answered before on the internet. Maybe if the aforementioned detections were added, people would finally stop coping about them this way.