Comment by bluegatty
1 month ago
Yes, I get that, but it's only now the issues are coming into the commons in a way that industry / society needs the regulatory clarity.
It's completey insane that we still don't know how Open Source would work, that the laws are vague and we're still technically waiting for the courts to decide on cases.
The government should a) legislate and b) create test cases and run them through the courts so that we can have clarity.
> it's only now the issues are coming into the commons in a way that industry / society needs the regulatory clarity.
you mean like the regulatory clarity surrounding stealing shit to make the LLMs in the first place?
> [There is] extensive litigation on the limits of Fair Use to AI development. Currently, we only have 3 first instance decisions out of the 53 cases being tried. It will likely take a decade before we understand how Fair Use applies to any one step in AI training, let alone all.
https://www.britishcopyright.org/wp-content/uploads/BCC-Fair...
> The government should a) legislate and b) create test cases and run them through the courts so that we can have clarity.
if so, it would be nice if they approached the instances of stealing shit chronologically. but that's just my view.
It's hilarious to see how all these HN intellectuals, who on any other day are rabidly against most DRM / IP issues all of a sudden become private property absolutists.
It's also sadly hypocritical to see all this rhetoric here on this thread decrying SOTAs for using a variety of content for their inputs as somehow sTeaLINg sTufF! ...
... but Chinese SOTA foundries directly using distillation as fair game.
I don't think there is any coherence to any of these arguments - other than 'we liking big companies'. That's the only common thread.
What is more reasonable:
- There's some grounds for fair use by SOTA models to ingest content, so long as they are not reproducing it ... very roughly speaking.
- SOTA makers are producing novel works, there is value add in that process, again roughly speaking.
- Distillation is a bit of a grey zone, producing random content as arbitrary input is one thing, but producing training sets is another. I think there's a coherent line in there somewhere, I'm not sure where it is.
You're being too charitable to Anthropic, and assuming that the way they are abusing the word "distillation" has some real meaning here. It doesn't.
Anthropic's models simply do not give you their reasoning output - they give a sanitized "summary" instead, for this exact reason, so that the output is not useful to anyone who might want to use it for training.
You can't distill what you are not given - simple as that.
Are Chinese using the output of US models to help create some additional training data for their own in some way? Yes - quite possibly (e.g. LLM as judge), but its got nothing to do with distillation.
37 replies →
idk. i think its fair use when anthropic trains off of copyrighted works, and theres no property rights at all related to the model outputs
there's no creative work between the weights and the tokens being made.
whats the big deal if chinese companies sell an exact replica of the model? its a summary of a variety of works of text and images
Like most things, i support rights for people, and not companies. Copyright was created for authors, artists, and inventors. Rules for corporations can and should be different.
2 replies →
> It's also sadly hypocritical to see all this rhetoric here on this thread decrying SOTAs for using a variety of content for their inputs as somehow sTeaLINg sTufF! ...
> ... but Chinese SOTA foundries directly using distillation as fair game.
As someone who says it’s fair game, it’s less that I’m being hypocritical and more that I don’t care that one thief had their shit stolen by a second thief. I also wouldn’t care if someone distills the Chinese models. It’s just thieves all around and if they want legal protection or moral outrage from the common man then my view is that they should stop stealing first.
3 replies →
Do you think that Anthropic should own any outputs you generate with their models?
If not there is not there is no grey zone whatsoever.
> it's hilarious to see how all these HN intellectuals, who on any other day are rabidly against most DRM / IP issues all of a sudden become private property absolutists.
for the record, i've always been rabidly pro-copyright since i worked at a performing royalty organization (prs for music) circa 15 years ago, way before i joined hn.
i don't use llms for that reason.
> It's also sadly hypocritical to see all this rhetoric here on this thread decrying SOTAs for using a variety of content for their inputs as somehow sTeaLINg sTufF! ...
when i see a spade, i call it a spade. just because the US has utterly stupid copyright provisions that are wide open for abuse, i.e. fair use, doesn't mean abusing those provisions at scale is morally acceptable.
> ... but Chinese SOTA foundries directly using distillation as fair game.
two wrongs don't make a right, but the irony is at least something.
> I don't think there is any coherence to any of these arguments - other than 'we liking big companies'. That's the only common thread.
the corpos can get fucked as far as i'm concerned.
> What is more reasonable: ... There's some grounds for fair use by SOTA models to ingest content, so long as they are not reproducing it ... very roughly speaking.
*only in the US.
7 replies →
I think people just react to the hypocrisy of corporations stamping on people for "copyright violations" only for (often the same) corporations to blatantly obtain any data they can find, totally disregarding any licenses, scrappers overloading web sites or even privacy.
And the result is force feeding an AI slop generator with a subscription while making personal hardware 3x+ times more expensive.
No wonder people are fed up with this behavior.