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

  • Ulu-Mulu-no-die
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Copyright, this is not the first time they’re sued for it apparently (violating copyright is a crime).

    • bioemerl
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      Scraping the web is legal and training AI on data is also legal.

      • Ulu-Mulu-no-die
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Reusing the content you scraped, if copyright protected, is not.

        Edit: unless you get the authorization of the original authors but OpenAI didn’t even asked, that’s why it’s a crime.

          • LegendofDragoon
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            That really will be the question at hand. Is the ai producing work that could be considered transformative, educational, or parody? The answer is of course yes, it is capable of doing all three of those things, but it’s also capable of being coaxed into reproducing things exactly.

            I don’t know if current copyright laws are capable of dealing with the ai Renaissance.

        • bioemerl
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          Yeah it is. The only protection in copyright is called derivative works, and an AI is not a derivative of a book, No more than your brain is after you’ve read one.

          The only exception would be if you manage to overtrain and encode the contents of the book inside of the model file. That’s not what happened here because I’ll chat GPT output was a summary.

          The only valid claim here is the fact that the books were not supposed to be on the public internet and it’s likely that the way open AI the books in the first place was through some piracy website through scraping the web.

          At that point you just have to hold them liable for that act of piracy, not the fact that the model release was an act of copyright violation.