REVIEW 2 cited by
Training Foundation Models as Data Compression: On Information, Model Weights and Copyright Law
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The training process of foundation models as for other classes of deep learning systems is based on minimizing the reconstruction error over a training set. For this reason, they are susceptible to the memorization and subsequent reproduction of training samples. In this paper, we introduce a training-as-compressing perspective, wherein the model's weights embody a compressed representation of the training data. From a copyright standpoint, this point of view implies that the weights can be considered a reproduction or, more likely, a derivative work of a potentially protected set of works. We investigate the technical and legal challenges that emerge from this framing of the copyright of outputs generated by foundation models, including their implications for practitioners and researchers. We demonstrate that adopting an information-centric approach to the problem presents a promising pathway for tackling these emerging complex legal issues.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Probabilistic "Copies" in Generative AI Models
An LLM is an infringing copy of a work only when the work can be extracted from it with relatively little effort, so some models are copies of some works and no model is a copy of everything it trained on.
-
LCIRC: A Recurrent Compression Approach for Efficient Long-form Context and Query Dependent Modeling in LLMs
A frozen LLM can process very long contexts by recurrently compressing them with a Perceiver and injecting the compressed memory through gated cross-attention, with query-dependent compression boosting QA performance.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.