765
OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
765 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
8 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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).
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.
AI access to information is dependent on the access humans have.
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.
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.
Well copyright certainly isn't protecting authors if big corporations can use their works without paying for them. That's the whole point.
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.
People see that they were purchased for 10 billion dollars and want a piece of the pie.
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
yes, this is the fundamental point