this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
469 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

72212 readers
3333 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says::Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If it ends up being OK for a company like OpenAI to commit copyright infringement to train their AI models it should be OK for John/Jane Doe to pirate software for private use.

But that would never happen. Almost like the whole of copyright has been perverted into a scam.

[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You wouldn't steal a car, would you?

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

It is funny how Hollywood was droning that sentence into our head, and now they are downloading actors themselves. Oh the irony.

[–] tinwhiskers@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Using copyrighted material is not the same thing as copyright infringement. You need to (re)publish it for it to become an infringement, and OpenAI is not publishing the material made with their tool; the users of it are. There may be some grey areas for the law to clarify, but as yet, they have not clearly infringed anything, any more than a human reading copyrighted material and making a derivative work.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It comes from OpenAI and is given to OpenAI’s users, so they are publishing it.

[–] Syntha@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Insane how this comment is downvoted, when, as far as a I'm aware, it's literally just the legal reality at this point in time.

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

any more than a human reading copyrighted material and making a derivative work.

It seems obvious to me that it's not doing anything different than a human does when we absorb information and make our own works. I don't understand why practically nobody understands this

I'm surprised to have even found one person that agrees with me

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it’s objectively not true. Humans and ML models fundamentally process information differently and cannot be compared. A model doesn’t “read a book” or “absorb information”

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I didn't say they processed information the same, I said generative AI isn't doing anything that humans don't already do. If I make a drawing of Gordon Freeman or Courage the Cowardly Dog, or even a drawing of Gordon Freeman in the style of Courage the Cowardly Dog, I'm not infringing on the copyright of Valve or John Dilworth. (Unless I monetize it, but even then there's fair-use...)

Or if I read a statistic or some kind of piece of information in an article and spoke about it online, I'm not infringing the copyright of the author. Or if I listen to hundreds of hours of a podcast and then do a really good impression of one of the hosts online, I'm not infringing on that person's copyright or stealing their voice.

Neither me making that drawing, nor relaying that information, nor doing that impression are copyright infringement. Me uploading a copy of Courage or Half-Life to the internet would be, or copying that article, or uploading the hypothetical podcast on my own account somewhere. Generative AI doesn't publish anything, and even if it did I think there would be a strong case for fair-use for the same reasons humans would have a strong case for fair-use for publishing their derivative works.