112
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
112 points (86.4% liked)
Technology
59066 readers
4390 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No. I reject you claiming such a power to deny.
That's exactly what's at stake, waiting to be sufficiently litigated. And I hope that creators will win, and that they would be able to tell if they allow richest big tech companies in the world to train on their creations.
Likewise, I hope they don't win, as that will give the richest tech companies so much more of a stranglehold.
I doubt there's any chance of it happening anyway, since there's a ton of money to be made and and there's already countries which have rules this will never happen (Like Japan ), so it would mean they become the AI powerhouses
They have already trained on those creations though. Including the newer stuff just released today. How will you claw that back?
If you do stuff, earn from it, and ignore parties and their rights, you are forced to compensate. I guess it will be peanuts though.
They could shut down the previous models that were trained on invalid works. Sucks to suck but that's what you get when you do everything in your power to skirt the law.
Yeah, and the same thing would happen if e.g. PII or HIPAA related would end up in trained model. The fact that some PII or health data ended up being publicly available, doesn't mean that automatically you can process or store such data, and train on such data.
This has already been proven by google security researchers who got several of the big "AI" bots to spit out copyrighted materials and PII from their training data sets which the "AI" creators claimed was not stored.
It's not stored as the full material though. If a human that can sing a copyrighted song is not considered to have a recording of the copyrighted song in their brain, so too are LLMs able to spit out their training data without having to store them.
How do you know what it's storing? I certainly don't, but I know what the security researchers have found that proved it was storing copyrighted material and real people's private info or PII.
You being able to spit people's name and personal details doesn't mean you are keeping a database of those details in your brain. It's all just neurons and the connection between them that can be triggered to extract those details out.
LLMs also attempt to mimic this method of not storing direct information, but tweaking parameters to 'learn' the information. Inside LLMs are just a bunch of parameters that if not well-designed, can be made to spit out what they have learnt. That doesn't mean they store those information as is.
That's what they tell you about it I'm sure, but what proof do you have?
It's not just what they tell you. There are plenty of publicly accessible LLM models. Go and download them and open the files up. Surely if they are storing these things as complete data, you can easily find them by poking around the files instead of having to make then spit it out.
I'm aware of the availability of them, I've looked into building a private install of GPT4All. Even though we can look into those files directly, it doesn't prove that the large "AI" systems run by the mega-corps are not storing copyrighted data. The only thing that could prove that is a complete audit of all the data storage that their "AI" systems have access to.
This will likely play out in the courts due to the numerous lawsuits in process from artists suing over their work being stolen. Legal discovery could compel that kind of data audit.