OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

  • Gnubyte@lemdit.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Our ancient legal system trying to lend itself to “protecting authors” is fucking absurd. AI is the future. Are we really going to let everyone take a shot suing these guys over this crap? Its a useful program and infrastructure for everyone.

    Holding technology back for antiquated copyright law is downright absurd.

    Edit: I want to add that I’m not suggesting copyright should be a free for all on your books or hard work, but rather that this is a computer program and a major breakthrough, and in the same way that if I read a book no one sues my brain for consumption I don’t think we should sue an AI: it is not reproducing books. In the same manner that many footnotes websites about books do not reproduce a book by summarizing their content. With the contingency that until Open AI does not have an event where their reputation has to be re-evaluated (IE this is subject to change if they start trying to reproduce books).

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Stop comparing AI to a person. It’s not a person, it doesn’t do the things a person does, and it doesn’t have the rights of a person.

      And yes the laws are antiquated. We need new laws that will protect authors.

      Finally, no, you can’t just throw out all other considerations because you think AI is useful.

      • kava@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        and it doesn’t have the rights of a person.

        And we have determined that AI created work cannot be copyrighted - because it’s not a person. Nobody’s trying to claim that AI somehow has the rights of a person.

        But reading a bunch of books and then creating new material using the knowledge gained in those books is not copyright infringement and should be not treated as such. I can take Andy Warhol’s style and create as many advertisements as I want with it. He doesn’t own the style, nobody does.

        Why should that be any different for a company using AI? Makes no sense to me.

        You have been duped into thinking copyright is protecting authors when really copyright primarily exists to protect companies like Disney.

        • warbond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          For clarity’s sake, the original intent behind copyright was definitely to protect authors and thereby foster creativity, but corporations like Disney have lobbied very successfully over the years to prevent original works from becoming public domain.

          Meanwhile, in classic fashion, those same companies have taken public domain works and turned them into ludicrously successful IPs!

          I argue that this is a positive aspect of capitalism that our governments have unduly suppressed in favor of corporate sponsors (further solidified by an increasing legal allowance of such sponsorships), and that we should return to a more reasonable timeframe for full exclusivity.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well copyright certainly isn’t protecting authors if big corporations can use their works without paying for them. That’s the whole point.

      • Gnubyte@lemdit.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m not sure about that at all. At what point does a computer program become intelligent enough to not have human rights but have some cognition of fair use.

        I think it needs to be really hashed out by someone who understands both copyright law and data warehouses, and some programming. It’s a sparse field for sure but we need someone equipped for it.

        Because I don’t think it’s as linear as you’re describing it.

    • CluckN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      People see that they were purchased for 10 billion dollars and want a piece of the pie.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Lawyers getting paid regardless and are willing to yet again fuck regular folk and strip us of more things. Internet was so much more fun before they showed up and started suing everybody and issuing DMCA take downs

    • LordShrek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      if I read a book no one sues my brain for consumption

      yes, this is the fundamental point