undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbambax1y ago0 comments

What will happen is that when you ask the AI to summarize a book to remove the fluff, it will inject random mentions of how the main character decided to drink a Coke.

Let's go with truly open models! you say. That way we can be sure there are no shoddy behind-the-scenes deal going on between the model provider and some company or government.

But the ads are in the training data, they are part of the fabric of the world. You can't get rid of them except if you do the training yourself, which is a huge amount of work, and maybe impossible (because model providers escape copyright laws, and you can't).

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

tensor1y ago· 1 in thread

Actually, training it yourself is probably better in terms of copyright. If you train an LLM that only you use, from books you own, I don't see how that is actually illegal. As long as you're not selling the LLM or content it generates is there any legal issue?

Terr_1y ago

> If you train an LLM that only you use, from books you own, I don't see how that is actually illegal.

But it won't be functional, because Large Language Models requires far more samples than your private library, at least if you want it to do things that you couldn't solve with a much simpler deterministic search.

For example, usefully extending the document "Which book had the sarcastic one-armed antagonist?" with another sentence that happens to also be the answer.

falcor841y ago

I agree about the difficulty, but am optimistic that if enough of us wanted to achieve this, we could train it as a distributed effort, with the coordination of a non-profit like the EFF. The question is whether we care enough.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse