this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
665 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

69247 readers
4571 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
 

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.

(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Its a bit pedantic, but I'm not really sure I support this kind of extremist view of copyright and the scale of whats being interpreted as 'possessed' under the idea of copyright. Once an idea is communicated, it becomes a part of the collective consciousness. Different people interpret and build upon that idea in various ways, making it a dynamic entity that evolves beyond the original creator's intention. Its like issues with sampling beats or records in the early days of hiphop. Its like the very principal of an idea goes against this vision, more that, once you put something out into the commons, its irretrievable. Its not really yours any more once its been communicated. I think if you want to keep an idea truly yours, then you should keep it to yourself. Otherwise you are participating in a shared vision of the idea. You don't control how the idea is interpreted so its not really yours any more.

If thats ChatGPT or Public Enemy is neither here nor there to me. The idea that a work like Peter Pan is still possessed is such a very real but very silly obvious malady of this weirdly accepted but very extreme view of the ability to possess an idea.

[–] Bogasse@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well, I'd consider agreeing if the LLMs were considered as a generic knowledge database. However I had the impression that the whole response from OpenAI & cie. to this copyright issue is "they build original content", both for LLMs and stable diffusion models. Now that they started this line of defence I think that they are stuck with proving that their "original content" is not derivated from copyrighted content 🤷

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Well, I’d consider agreeing if the LLMs were considered as a generic knowledge database. However I had the impression that the whole response from OpenAI & cie. to this copyright issue is “they build original content”, both for LLMs and stable diffusion models. Now that they started this line of defence I think that they are stuck with proving that their “original content” is not derivated from copyrighted content 🤷

Yeah I suppose that's on them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It feels like we've just taken our first steps down the path of the Robin Williams acted movie 'Bicentennial Man' timeline.

[–] Gnubyte@lemdit.com -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)

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).

[–] LordShrek@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

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

yes, this is the fundamental point

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Lol, oh my gosh guys, it's true. This is a (error ridden) line from dobby.

Edit: I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing. This is amazing. I can't stop... I won't stop.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›