Using a legally obtained dataset of 34 copyrighted O’Reilly Media books (13,962 paragraphs), we apply the DE-COP membership inference attack to test whether OpenAI models show recognition of non-public (pay-walled) content they were not licensed to train on. Our main contribution is examining non-public books, which allows us to consider potential access violations and not just training inclusion. Our results suggest that GPT-4o, OpenAI’s more recent and capable model in our sample, exhibits patterns consistent with recognition of non-public books, with an AUROC score of 0.82 (95% bootstrapped CI: 0.60−0.96)—where above 50% is better than random chance. GPT-3.5 Turbo (trained two years prior) and the smaller GPT-4o Mini both score near chance recognition on non-public data (0.54 and 0.56, respectively). Results are robust to independent paraphrasers (Gemma and Qwen) and leave-one-book-out sensitivity analyses. We also test both GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini, with the same October 2023 training cutoff date, to ensure the model is not simply identifying language shifts over time. These findings support disclosure requirements for pre-training data provenance and formal licensing markets for training content. Results remain preliminary given the small book sample, possible contamination of post-cutoff controls, and differences across models in size, architecture, and training composition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosenblat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: