• Moonrise2473@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seems very improbable that they scraped a pirate website with forced registration and tight daily download limits (10 books a day max?) to get content that’s often mislabeled and not presented in an homogeneous way.

    Probably it’s just using the excerpt from Amazon (which instead with paid API access is much more easy to access) as a prompt and build on it

    • luciole@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s been ongoing suspicions that pirated content was used to train popular LLMs simply because popular datasets used for training LLMs do include such content. The Washington Post did an article about it.

      Google’s C4 dataset used for research included illegal websites. What remains to be seen is if it was cleaned up before training Bard as we know it today. OpenAI as revealed nothing on its dataset.

      • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The website is like that.

        Still seems improbable that they committed massive piracy by specifically searching and downloading illegal torrents

        • Arthur BesseOPA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/9/23788741/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-chatgpt-llama-copyright-infringement-chatbots-artificial-intelligence-ai says:

          The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together from “a copy of the contents of the Bibliotik private tracker.” Bibliotik and the other “shadow libraries” listed, says the lawsuit, are “flagrantly illegal.”

          • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            if meta used an illegal source (which is extremely stupid, like using drug money to open a bank) it does not mean google or openai did the same

            the meta model is not public, probably for that reason, they just trained it with dirty data for research just to see the feasibility

            for fun, i searched the most obscure and niche recent book that i could think: 9791280546517 “Vado e tornerò da voi. Riflessioni sulla Pasqua e sulla Pentecoste”. It’s so niche that’s impossible to find a pirated or even a legit ebook copy. Even if it was published a few months ago, bing AI was able to produce an excerpt and even a short review.

            • Arthur BesseOPA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              the meta model is not public, probably for that reason, they just trained it with dirty data for research just to see the feasibility

              Meta’s LLaMA model actually is publicly available; they released it widely to anyone with a .edu email address and of course it soon ended up on bittorrent. Here is the 🧲 link (which you can also hilariously still find in this pull request, despite the DMCA takedowns they’ve sent elsewhere about it).

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The sources for those websites are all being archived as a huge torrent. You don’t have to download every single book one by one, if you are interested in all of them…