Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry Potter book

Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry... by geysersam on Monday June 16, 2025 @12:46AM (#44286682)

If the assertion in the parent comment is correct "nobody is using this as a substitute to buying the book" why should the rights holders get paid?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry... by riffraff on Monday June 16, 2025 @12:50AM (#44286699)

The argument is meta used the book so the LLM can be considered a derivative work in some sense.

Repeat for every copyrighted work and you end up with publishers reasonably arguing meta would not be able to produce their LLM without copyrighted work, which they did not pay for.

It's an argument for the courts, of course.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry... by w0m on Monday June 16, 2025 @12:53AM (#44286711)

The argument is whether the LLM training on the copyrighted work is Fair Use or not. Should META pay for the copyright on works it ingests for training purposes?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry... by sabellito on Monday June 16, 2025 @03:50AM (#44287468)

Facebook are using the contents of the book to make money.

[ Parent | on HN ]