Comment by stale2002
3 days ago
> I suppose you think that model providers are not allowed to impose restrictions on the use of their model
They should have exactly the same ability to "restrict" it is as the writer of a book on those who read the book that was purchased.
And seeing as those model providers were not restricted from training on those books.... It would follow that other people would have the exact same right to train on the output of the models.
I simply demand that model providers are treated exactly the same as the data that they trained on. Either it was OK for them to train on other people's work, en mass, without permission, over the objection of the creator, and therefore its OK to do the same to them.
or none of its ok, and they should presumably be equally sued into oblivion, and equally shut down completely by the government.
Thats all. Take your pick. Either all of the training on either books and all the models, without permission, is ok or none of it is.
Additionally, the output of a model isn't even copyrightable. So actually there would be even less protections for that. Because of this, it seems that anyone could use it for anything.
EX: 3rd parties aren't bound by the TOS of the models. So someone could simply do a passthrough, and give the uncopyrightable output to someone else to distill, and since the distiller didn't sign the TOS they would be in the clear to train on non copyrightable info.
> So someone could simply do a passthrough, and give the uncopyrightable output to someone else to distill
It seems you do not understand what distillation is.
You have misunderstood my statement.
I am saying that someone else would use that output to create or improve a different model. I think you could have figured out that this was the meaning of my statement instead of doing the irrelevant nitpick that you did.
Its also unrelated to my point, which is that person 1 could give the data from model A to person 2, and person 2 would be fine because they didn't sign any TOS contracts with model A, and the output from model AI is not copyrightable and therefore can be redistributed.
Additionally, it still doesn't address the point about how the original model trained on a bunch of other people's stuff without permission, so I don't see why the same shouldn't be done to their outputted content.
Do you have any substantive disagreements or are you just going to make a minute, incorrect nitpick and then not elaborate?