2 authors say OpenAI 'ingested' their books to train ChatGPT. Now they're suing, and a 'wave' of similar court cases may follow.(www.businessinsider.com)

posted 1 year ago

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

Sort:

Hot Top Controversial New Old

You are viewing a single thread.

View all comments View context

[ - ]

Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

I’m not against artificial intelligence, it could be a very valuable tool, but that’s nowhere near a valid reason to break laws as OpenAI has done, that’s why I too hope authors win.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

bioemerl@kbin.social

12 points

1 year ago

What laws are you saying they’ve broken?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

bioemerl@kbin.social

9 points

1 year ago

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

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world

4 points

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Gnothi@lemmy.world

12 points

1 year ago

Sounds like fair use to me.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

LegendofDragoon@kbin.social

1 point

1 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.

report

[ - ]

3 points

1 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.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

18K
Monthly active users
12K
Posts
553K
Comments

Our Rules

Approved Bots

Community stats

Community moderators