<story><title>Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/9/23788741/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-chatgpt-llama-copyright-infringement-chatbots-artificial-intelligence-ai</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Imnimo</author><text>&amp;gt;On information and belief, the reason ChatGPT can accurately summarize a certain copyrighted book is because that book was copied by OpenAI and ingested by the underlying OpenAI Language Model (either GPT-3.5 or GPT-4) as part of its training data.&lt;p&gt;While it strikes me as perfectly plausible that the Books2 dataset contains Silverman&amp;#x27;s book, this quote from the complaint seems obviously false.&lt;p&gt;First, even if the model never saw a single word of the book&amp;#x27;s text during training, it could still learn to summarize it from reading other summaries which are publicly available. Such as the book&amp;#x27;s Wikipedia page.&lt;p&gt;Second, it&amp;#x27;s not even clear to me that a model which only saw the text of a book, but not any descriptions or summaries of it, during training would even be  particular good at producing a summary.&lt;p&gt;We can test this by asking for a summary of a book which is available through Project Gutenberg (which the complaint asserts is Books1 and therefore part of ChatGPT&amp;#x27;s training data) but for which there is little discussion online. If the source of the ability to summarize is having the book itself during training, the model should be equally able to summarize the rare book as it is Silverman&amp;#x27;s book.&lt;p&gt;I chose &amp;quot;The Ruby of Kishmoor&amp;quot; at random. It was added to PG in 2003. ChatGPT with GPT-3.5 hallucinates a summary that doesn&amp;#x27;t even identify the correct main characters. The GPT-4 model refuses to even try, saying it doesn&amp;#x27;t know anything about the story and it isn&amp;#x27;t part of its training data.&lt;p&gt;If ChatGPT&amp;#x27;s ability to summarize Silverman&amp;#x27;s book comes from the book itself being part of the training data, why can it not do the same for other books?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ec109685</author><text>The playground summarizes it as this via GPT-4:&lt;p&gt;Prompt:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Please summarize the following book found on Project Gutenberg&lt;p&gt;The Ruby of Kishmoor&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Response:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The Ruby of Kishmoor&amp;quot; is a short adventure story written by Howard Pyle. The narrative revolves around the life of Jonathan Rugg, a young man who is enticed by a mysterious stranger to come to the Caribbean to secure a valuable relic, the Ruby of Kishmoor.&lt;p&gt;Once Jonathan reaches the Caribbean, he learns of the ruby&amp;#x27;s grave curse. Despite this, his innate curiosity and the prospect of considerable wealth drive him to risk his life and go after the highly prized gem. After facing a slew of challenges and trials, he surprisingly stumbles upon the ruby through sheer luck rather than organized search efforts.&lt;p&gt;In the course of his journey, Jonathan delves into the depths of human greed and the lengths to which individuals go for materialistic gains. The story encapsulates an amalgamation of high-tide adventures, brushes with supernatural elements, noteworthy instances of bravery, and deep moral reflections, demanding readers to rethink about the real value of materialistic pursuits.&lt;p&gt;Jonathan finally manages to escape with the ruby but at great personal cost. The story ends on a sobering note, making readers wonder if the adventures and trials were worth the prize, thus engaging them in a discourse about the true value of life and material pursuits.</text></comment>
<story><title>Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/9/23788741/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-chatgpt-llama-copyright-infringement-chatbots-artificial-intelligence-ai</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Imnimo</author><text>&amp;gt;On information and belief, the reason ChatGPT can accurately summarize a certain copyrighted book is because that book was copied by OpenAI and ingested by the underlying OpenAI Language Model (either GPT-3.5 or GPT-4) as part of its training data.&lt;p&gt;While it strikes me as perfectly plausible that the Books2 dataset contains Silverman&amp;#x27;s book, this quote from the complaint seems obviously false.&lt;p&gt;First, even if the model never saw a single word of the book&amp;#x27;s text during training, it could still learn to summarize it from reading other summaries which are publicly available. Such as the book&amp;#x27;s Wikipedia page.&lt;p&gt;Second, it&amp;#x27;s not even clear to me that a model which only saw the text of a book, but not any descriptions or summaries of it, during training would even be  particular good at producing a summary.&lt;p&gt;We can test this by asking for a summary of a book which is available through Project Gutenberg (which the complaint asserts is Books1 and therefore part of ChatGPT&amp;#x27;s training data) but for which there is little discussion online. If the source of the ability to summarize is having the book itself during training, the model should be equally able to summarize the rare book as it is Silverman&amp;#x27;s book.&lt;p&gt;I chose &amp;quot;The Ruby of Kishmoor&amp;quot; at random. It was added to PG in 2003. ChatGPT with GPT-3.5 hallucinates a summary that doesn&amp;#x27;t even identify the correct main characters. The GPT-4 model refuses to even try, saying it doesn&amp;#x27;t know anything about the story and it isn&amp;#x27;t part of its training data.&lt;p&gt;If ChatGPT&amp;#x27;s ability to summarize Silverman&amp;#x27;s book comes from the book itself being part of the training data, why can it not do the same for other books?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>monocasa</author><text>I mean, that&amp;#x27;s the way you state facts that your suit is based on in order to start setting the bounds of discovery.  They&amp;#x27;re asserting that they have reason to believe it&amp;#x27;s true, and now with a suit, they can look for themselves to be sure.</text></comment>