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.

  • bamboo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mostly because fuck corporations trying to milk their copyright. I have no particular love for OpenAI (though I do like their product), but I do have great distain for already-successful corporations that would hold back the progress of humanity because they didn’t get paid (again).

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps, and when that happens I would be equally disdainful towards them.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In the United States there was a judgement made the other day saying that works created soley by AI are not copyright-able. So that that would put a speed bumb there.
        I may have misunderstood what you though.

        • msage@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, they might not copyright it, but after it becomes the ‘one true AI’, it will be at the hands of Microsoft, so please do not act friendly towards them.

          It will turn on you just like every private company has.

          (don’t mean specifically you, but everyone generally)

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Huh. Doesn’t this means technically AI cannot do copyright infringement.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nah, it would mean that you cannot copyright a work created by an AI, such as a piece of art.

            E.g. if you tell it to draw you a donkey carting avocados, the picture can be used by anyone from what I understand.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              you cannot copyright a work created by an AI, such as a piece of art.

              That’s what I said. Copyright infringement is when there is another copyrightable object that is copy of first object. AI is not witin copyright area. You can’t copyright it, but also you can’t be sued for copyright infringement too.

              if you tell it to draw you a donkey carting avocados, the picture can be used by anyone from what I understand.

              Yes. Same for Public Domain, but PD is another status. PD applies only to copyrightable work.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s like argument “but new politicians will steal more” that I hear in Russia from people who protect Putin

        • msage@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s literally not, wtf.

          Do not let any private entity to get overwhelming majority on anything period.

          But do not kid yourself that Microsoft will let OpenAI do anything for public once it gets big enough.

          OpenAI is open only in name after they rolled back all the promises of being for everyone.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s my entire point. It’s not who, but how long.

            Also Microsoft plays both sides here. OpenAI vs copyright is wrong question. There’s more: both are status-quo. Both are for keeping corporate ownership of ideas.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a massive difference though between corporations milking copyright and authors/musicians/artists wanting their copyright respected. All I see here is a corporation milking copyrighted works by creative individuals.