Two authors sued OpenAI, accusing the company of violating copyright law. They say OpenAI used their work to train ChatGPT without their consent.

  • randomdude567@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t really understand why people are so upset by this. Except for people who train networks based on someone’s stolen art style, people shouldn’t be getting mad at this. OpenAI has practically the entire internet as its source, so GPT is going to have so much information that any specific author barely has an effect on the output. OpenAI isn’t stealing peoples art because they are not copying the artwork, they are using it to train models. imagine getting sued for looking at reference artwork before creating artwork.

    • whereisk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless you provide for personhood to those statistical inference models the analogy falls flat.

      We’re talking about a corporation using copyrighted data to feed their database to create a product.

      If you were ever in a copyright negotiation you’d see that everything is relevant: intended use, audience size, sample size, projected income, length of usage, mode of transmission, quality etc.

      They’ve negotiated none of it and worst of all they commercialised it. I’d consider that being in real trouble.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention, if we’re going to judge them based on personhood, then companies need to be treating it like a person. They can’t have it both ways. Either pay it a fair human wage for its work, or it isn’t a person.

        Frankly, the fact that the follow-up question would be “well what’s it going to do with the money?” tells us it isn’t a person.