this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
361 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

74821 readers
2697 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
361
Meta admits using pirated books to train AI, but won't pay for it (www.techspot.com)
submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So why are Meta, and say, Sci-Hub treated so differently?

They are not. Meta is being sued, just like Sci-Hub was sued. So, one difference is that the suit involving Meta is still ongoing.

In any case, Meta did not create the dataset. IDK if they even shared it. The researcher who did is also being sued. The dataset has been taken down in response to a copyright complaint. IDK if it is available anywhere anymore. So the dataset was treated just like Sci-Hub. The sharing of the copyrighted material was stopped.

Meta downloading these books for AI training seems fairly straight-forward fair use to me. I don't see how what Meta did is anything like what Sci-Hub did.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

So ISPs are blocking Meta for their breaking of copyright?

Because ISPs block Sci-Hub.

No, one of them is having governments trying to kick off the internet, and the other is allowed to continue doing what they're doing and the worst they'll face is a fine. Not even close to the same, completely disproportionate. If they were blocking all Meta LLMs until they had removed all copyrighted material, maybe we could say the same.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

ISPs may block sites to prevent unauthorized copying. It's not a punishment for past wrong-doing. I'm not sure about the details, I think this differs a lot between jurisdictions. But basically, as ISPs they are involved in the unauthorized act of copying. Their servers copy the data to the end user/customer. So, they may be on the hook for infringement themselves if they don't act.

Again, I am not aware of Meta sharing the copyrighted books in question. So, I don't know what the legal basis for blocking Meta would be. If ISPs block a site without a legal basis, they are probably on the hook for breach of contract.

IDK on what basis the sharing of Meta's LLMs could be stopped. If anyone could claim copyright it would be Meta itself and they allow sharing them. (I have doubts if AI models are copyrightable under current US law.)

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/08/technology/openai-new-york-times-lawsuit.html

In its lawsuit Wednesday, the Times accused Microsoft and OpenAI of creating a business model based on “mass copyright infringement,” stating that the companies’ AI systems were “used to create multiple reproductions of The Times’s intellectual property for the purpose of creating the GPT models that exploit and, in many cases, retain large portions of the copyrightable expression contained in those works.”

Publishers are concerned that, with the advent of generative AI chatbots, fewer people will click through to news sites, resulting in shrinking traffic and revenues.

The Times included numerous examples in the suit of instances where GPT-4 produced altered versions of material published by the newspaper.

In one example, the filing shows OpenAI’s software producing almost identical text to a Times article about predatory lending practices in New York City’s taxi industry.

But in OpenAI’s version, GPT-4 excludes a critical piece of context about the sum of money the city made selling taxi medallions and collecting taxes on private sales.

In its suit, the Times said Microsoft and OpenAI’s GPT models “directly compete with Times content.”

If the New York Times' evidence is true (I haven't seen the evidence, so I can't comment on veracity), then you can recreate copyrighted works with LLMs, and as such, they're doing the same thing as the Pirate Bay, distributing copyrighted works without authorization and making money off the venture.

So far, no ISPs are blocking Meta for this.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago

Meta downloading these books for AI training seems fairly straight-forward fair use to me.

They pirated the books. Is that not legally relevant?