• @A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    28 months ago

    Funny how we have all this pissing and moaning about stealing, yet nobody ever complains about this bot actually lifting entire articles and spitting them back out without ads or fluff. I guess it’s different when you find it useful, huh?

    I like the bot, but I mean y’all wanna talk about copyright violations? The argument against this bot is a hell of a lot more solid than just using data for training.

    • @Guntrigger@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      28 months ago

      Is this bot a closed system which is being used for profit? No, you know exactly what its source is (the single article it is condensing) and even has a handy link about how it is open source at the end of every single post.

      • @A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 months ago

        It copied all of its text from the article, and it allows me to get all the information from it I want without providing that publisher with traffic or ad revenue. That’s not fair use.

        I do like the bot, and personally I’d rather it stay, but no matter how you look at it this isn’t “fair use” of the article.

        • @Guntrigger@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          Interesting take. In all of the defences of LLMs using copyrighted material it’s very often highlighted that “fair use” allows exactly such summaries of larger texts.

          In reality, “fair use” is ruled on a case by case basis, so it’s impossible to judge whether something is or not without it going to court.

          • @A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            We’re not making legislation here, so we don’t have that level of burden of proof. But either way, when it comes to factors of fair use that every authority on the matter will list, it violates almost all of them.

            It’s non-commercial, and it’s using facts rather than using a more creative work, so it’s got that going for it… But it’s

            • composed of 100% copied material

            • it’s not transformative

            • it’s substituting the original work

            • it uses officially published work

            • it specifically copies the “heart” of the work

            • it bypasses all of the ads and impacts their traffic/metrics so it has a financial impact on them.

            It’s pretty obvious that there is no argument here. The factors that are violated the hardest and most undisputably are the ones that most authorities on the matter (including the one I linked) agree are the most important.