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.

  • paraphrand
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 year ago

    Why are people defending a massive corporation that admits it is attempting to create something that will give them unparalleled power if they are successful?

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

      Mostly because fuck corporations trying to milk their copyright. I have no particular love for OpenAI (though I do like their product), but I do have great distain for already-successful corporations that would hold back the progress of humanity because they didn’t get paid (again).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In the United States there was a judgement made the other day saying that works created soley by AI are not copyright-able. So that that would put a speed bumb there.
          I may have misunderstood what you though.

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

            Yeah, they might not copyright it, but after it becomes the ‘one true AI’, it will be at the hands of Microsoft, so please do not act friendly towards them.

            It will turn on you just like every private company has.

            (don’t mean specifically you, but everyone generally)

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

              Nah, it would mean that you cannot copyright a work created by an AI, such as a piece of art.

              E.g. if you tell it to draw you a donkey carting avocados, the picture can be used by anyone from what I understand.

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

                you cannot copyright a work created by an AI, such as a piece of art.

                That’s what I said. Copyright infringement is when there is another copyrightable object that is copy of first object. AI is not witin copyright area. You can’t copyright it, but also you can’t be sued for copyright infringement too.

                if you tell it to draw you a donkey carting avocados, the picture can be used by anyone from what I understand.

                Yes. Same for Public Domain, but PD is another status. PD applies only to copyrightable work.

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

          It’s like argument “but new politicians will steal more” that I hear in Russia from people who protect Putin

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

            It’s literally not, wtf.

            Do not let any private entity to get overwhelming majority on anything period.

            But do not kid yourself that Microsoft will let OpenAI do anything for public once it gets big enough.

            OpenAI is open only in name after they rolled back all the promises of being for everyone.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s my entire point. It’s not who, but how long.

              Also Microsoft plays both sides here. OpenAI vs copyright is wrong question. There’s more: both are status-quo. Both are for keeping corporate ownership of ideas.

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

        There’s a massive difference though between corporations milking copyright and authors/musicians/artists wanting their copyright respected. All I see here is a corporation milking copyrighted works by creative individuals.

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      Because ultimately, it’s about the truth of things, and not what team is winning or losing.

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

      The dream would be that they manage to make their own glorious free & open source version, so that after a brief spike in corporate profit as they fire all their writers and artists, suddenly nobody needs those corps anymore because EVERYONE gets access to the same tools - if everyone has the ability to churn out massive content without hiring anyone, that theoretically favors those who never had the capital to hire people to begin with, far more than those who did the hiring.

      Of course, this stance doesn’t really have an answer for any of the other problems involved in the tech, not the least of which is that there’s bigger issues at play than just “content”.

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

        An LLM is not a person, it is a product. It doesn’t matter that it “learns” like a human - at the end of the day, it is a product created by a corporation that used other people’s work, with the capacity to disrupt the market that those folks’ work competes in.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And it should be able to freely use anything that’s available to it. These massive corporations and entities have exploited all the free spaces to advertise and sell us their own products and are now sour.

          If they had their way they are going to lock up much more of the net behind paywalls. Everybody should be with the LLMs on this.

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

            You are somehow conflating “massive corporation” with “independent creator,” while also not recognizing that successful LLM implementations are and will be run by massive corporations, and eventually plagued with ads and paywalls.

            People that make things should be allowed payment for their time and the value they provide their customer.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              People are paid. But they’re greedy and expect far more compensation then they deserve. In this case they should not be compensated for having an LLM ingest their work work if that work was legally owned or obtained

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

            Except the massive corporations and entities are the ones getting rich on this. They’re seeking to exploit the work of authors and musicians and artists.

            Respecting the intellectual property of creative workers is the anti corporate position here.

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

              Except corporations have infinitely more resources(money, lawyers) compared to people who create. Take Jarek Duda(mathematician from Poland) and Microsoft as an example. He created new compression algorythm, and Microsoft came few years later and patented it in Britain AFAIK. To file patent contest and prior art he needs 100k£.

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

                I think there’s an important distinction to make here between patents and copyright. Patents are the issue with corporations, and I couldn’t care less if AI consumed all that.

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

                  And for copyright there is no possible way to contest it. Also when copyright expires there is no guarantee it will be accessable by humanity. Patents are bad, copyright even worse.

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

              Large number of these Artist, musicians and authors is corporate America today. And those authors artists and musicians have exploited all our spaces for far too long. Most of the internet had been turned toxic due to their greed. I wish they take their content and go find their own spaces instead of mooching off everybody else’s. These LLMs are only doing what they’ve done

          • Cosmic Cleric
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            If they had their way they are going to lock up much more of the net behind paywalls.

            This!

            When the Internet was first a thing corpos tried to put everything behind paywalls, and we pushed back and won.

            Now, the next generation is advocating to put everything behind a paywall again?

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

                The reasoning that claims training a generative model is infringing IP would still mean a robot going into a library with a card it has to optically read all the books there to create the same generative model would still be infringing IP.

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

                Humans can judge information make decisions on it and adapt it. AI mostly just looks at what is statistically what is most likely based on training data. If 1 piece of data exists, it will copy, not paraphrase. Example was from I think copilot where it just printed out the code and comments from an old game verbatim. I think Quake2. It isn’t intelligence, it is statistical copying.

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

                because it might hurt authors and musicians and artists and other creative workers

                FTFY. Corporations shouldn’t be making a fucking dime from any of these works without fairly paying the creators.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -21 year ago

      AI is the new fan boy following since it became official that nfts are all fucking scams. They need a new technological God to push to feel superior to everyone else…