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.

  • BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re stealing a ridiculous amount of copyrighted works to use to train their model without the consent of the copyright holders.

    This includes the single person operations creating art that’s being used to feed the models that will take their jobs.

    OpenAI should not be allowed to train on copyrighted material without paying a licensing fee at minimum.

    • uzay@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also Sam Altman is a grifter who gives people in need small amounts of monopoly money to get their biometric data

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

        So hypothetical here. If Dreddit did launch a system that made it so users could trade Karma in for real currency or some alternative, does that mean that all fan fictions and all other fan boy account created material would become copyright infringement as they are now making money off the original works?

    • Stamets@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Stealing”.

      It cannot be theft as the product is publicly available and the original product is still available to other consumers.

      You can not like this and you can argue against it but it isn’t theft. Hasn’t and never will be. The same way piracy isn’t theft.

      People might respect this bizarre corporate protection stance if you use the correct terminology. And yes. You’re defending larger companies here, not individual artists. Copyright was invented for companies and corporations. They have extended copyright for decades to be able to hold on to stuff they believe to be theirs. They suppress creatives to take their work and put a copyright on it themselves.

      The only people you’re protecting with your argument are massive corporations. Have fun with that.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they purchased the data or the data is free its theirs to do what they want without violating the copyright like reselling the original work as their own. Training off it should not violate any copyright if the work was available for free or purchased by at least one person involved. Capitalism should work both ways