• dezmd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    9 months ago

    LLM is just another iteration of Search. Search engines do the same thing. Do we outlaw search engines?

    • AliasAKA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      SoRA is a generative video model, not exactly a large language model.

      But to answer your question: if all LLMs did was redirect you to where the content was hosted, then it would be a search engine. But instead they reproduce what someone else was hosting, which may include copyrighted material. So they’re fundamentally different from a simple search engine. They don’t direct you to the source, they reproduce a facsimile of the source material without acknowledging or directing you to it. SoRA is similar. It produces video content, but it doesn’t redirect you to finding similar video content that it is reproducing from. And we can argue about how close something needs to be to an existing artwork to count as a reproduction, but I think for AI models we should enforce citation models.

      • dezmd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        How does a search engine know where to point you? It injests all that data and processes it ‘locally’ on the search engines systems using algorithms to organize the data for search. It’s effectively the same dataset.

        LLM is absolutely another iteration of Search, with natural language ouput for the same input data. Are you advocating against search engine data injest as not fair use and copyright violations as well?

        You equate LLM to Intelligence which it is not. It is algorithmic search interation with natural language responses, but that doesn’t sound as cool as AI. It’s neat, it’s useful, and yes, it should cite the sourcing details (upon request), but it’s not (yet?) a real intelligence and is equal to search in terms of fair use and copyright arguments.

        • AliasAKA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I never equated LLMs to intelligence. And indexing the data is not the same as reproducing the webpage or the content on a webpage. For you to get beyond a small snippet that held your query when you search, you have to follow a link to the source material. Now of course Google doesn’t like this, so they did that stupid amp thing, which has its own issues and I disagree with amp as a general rule as well. So, LLMs can look at the data, I just don’t think they can reproduce that data without attribution (or payment to the original creator). Perplexity.ai is a little better in this regard because it does link back to sources and is attempting to be a search engine like entity. But OpenAI is not in almost all cases.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I feel conflicted about the whole thing. Technically it’s a model. I don’t feel that people should be able to sue me as a scientist for making a model based on publicly available data. I myself am merely trying to use the model itself to explain stuff about the world. But OpenAI are also selling access to the outputs of the model, that can very closely approximate the intellectual property of people. Also, most of the training data was accessed via scraping and other gray market methods that were often explicitly violating the TOU of the various places they scraped from. So it all is very difficult to sort through ethically.