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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    Because in practical terms, writers and artists’ livelihoods are being threatened by AIs who were trained on their work without their consent or compensation. Ultimately the only valid justification for copyright is to enable the career of professional creators who contribute to our culture. We knew how ideas and communication worked when copyright was first created. That is why it’s a limited time protection, a compromise.

    All the philosophical arguments about the nature of ideas and learning, and how much a machine may be like a person don’t change that if anyone dedicates years of their efforts to develop their skills only to be undercut by an AI who was trained on their own works, is an incredibly shitty position to be in.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      That’s actually not what copyright is for. Copyright was made to enhance the public culture by promoting the creation of art.

      If these record label types impede public culture then they are antithetical to copyright

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      All the philosophical arguments about the nature of ideas and learning, and how much a machine may be like a person don’t change that if anyone dedicates years of their efforts to develop their skills only to be undercut by an AI who was trained on their own works, is an incredibly shitty position to be in.

      So should Dread Zeplin be hauled off to jail because they created derivative works without permission? I mean maybe they should, but not for copyright imo. How about the fan Star Wars movies getting their balls sued off by Disney?

      writers and artists’ livelihoods are being threatened by AIs who were trained on their work without their consent or compensation

      Guess what? The actual copyright owners of the world; those who own tens of thousands or millions of copyrighted works, will be the precise individuals paying for and developing that kind of automation, and in the current legal interpretation of copyright, its their property to do so with. This outrage masturbation the internet is engaged in ignores the current reality of copyright, that its not small makers and artists benefiting from it but billion dollar multinational corporations benefiting from it.

      This is a philosophical argument and an important one: Should we legally constrain the flow and use of ideas because an individuals right to extract profit from an idea.

      I don’t think so.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        Dread Zeppelin could have been sued. They were just lucky to be liked by Robert Plant.

        As for the Star Wars fan movie, the copyright claim about the music was dropped because it was frivolous. The video creator made a deal with Lucasfilm to use Star Wars copyrighted material, he didn’t just go yolo.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        You are conditioning the rights of artists making derivative works to the rights of systems being used to take advantage of those artists without consent or compensation. Not only those are two different situations but also supporting the latter doesn’t mean supporting the former.

        Like I said somewhere in this discussion, AI are not people. People have rights that tools do not. If you want to argue in favor of parody and fan artists, do that. If you want to speak out again how the current state of copyright makes it so corporations rather than the actual artists gets the rights and profit over the works they create, do that. Leaping in defense of AI is not it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I’m challenging the legal precedent of the barrier of creating derivative works in any media, including AI.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        AI is not a person. If you replace it with a person in an analogy, that’s a whole different discussion.

        We actually do restrict how tools can engage with artworks all the time. You know, “don’t take pictures”.