upvote
Not the guy you responded to, but I would assume ”they keep it safe” somewhere in a cold storage. Just in case they decide to train on it in a later phase.

Think of it as the Big Data hype some years ago.

reply
I don't think they'd really be willing to risk the whole company on a small subset of prompts. It's not "keeping it safe", it's retaining proof of illegal activities.
reply
Yes, their entire existence relies on training on copyrighted content without permission being ok.
reply
You truly see no difference between having a perhaps-overly-generous definition of fair use and flagrantly breaking contracts that you signed with your customers?
reply
Why wouldn't they?
reply
Because the legal system does, in fact, have teeth. And those teeth actually deploy pretty readily. Especially when the people whose trade secrets you would be violating are gargantuan companies with enough resources that the cost of a lawsuit is a rounding error.
reply
deleted
reply
First it has to discover a violation.
reply
Yeah but a disgruntled employee would talk sooner or later.
reply
no it doesn't. If it would have teeth they would not resell copyright data. They will be busted like Kim DotCom
reply
No AI company has been reselling copyright data to my knowledge, it would be truly bizarre if they did that.

What they have been doing, with some narrow exceptions where they have lost billions of dollars in court cases*, is not at all obviously prohibited by copyright law. Neither web scraping (i.e. asking for copies of data from people you have every reason to believe are authorized to give you copies) or running algorithms on copyrighted data are generally copyright infringment. I say generally because the "algorithm" of "ctrl-c ctrl-v" is obviously an exception, and there's some argument that training is similar enough to be illegal - a fairly weak argument that is mostly losing in court but has some tiny chance of still succeeding.

The law doesn't have teeth to prohibit things not prohibited under the law - no matter how much many people would like them to be prohibited. This shouldn't be surprising.

Unlike with copyright, the law does pretty clearly prohibit violating contractual terms to not hang onto or use other peoples data for purposes other than the narrow ones laid out in the contract when you agreed to the contract.

* Namely acquiring copies of data from people who they know aren't authorized to make copies - i.e. torrenting.

reply
Fair use is a defense when using copyrighted data. It is not a declaration that the data isn't copyrighted.

So they are in fact literally reselling copyrighted data.

reply
Pay to play teeth
reply
To an extent, though for significant (in monetary terms) violations of the law the teeth tend to pay for themselves (but do so by not fully compensating the people whose behalf they are supposedly acting on).

More problematically there are camouflaged sharp spines pointed primarily in the direction of poorer people, and people not advised by lawyers.

But none of that matters here when the damaged parties include the megacorps of the world.

reply
Because the value obtained from doing so is unlikely to exceed the cost of the lawsuits if they were ever caught doing so.
reply
[dead]
reply