529
‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
529 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
3125 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Too bad
Why do they have free reign to store and use copyrighted material as training data? AIs don’t learn as a human would, and comparisons can’t be made between the learning processes.
They can be made. Imagine trying to hold any conversations without being able to reference popular culture.
Why do you have free reign to do the same?
I think you're going to have a hard time proving a financial distinction between them
You don’t need to prove a financial difference. They are fundamentally different systems that function in different ways. They cannot be compared 1:1 and laws cannot be applied as a 1:1. New regulations need to be added around AI use of copyrighted material.
I agree. For instance, it should be secured in law that you can train AI on anything, to avoid frivolous discussions like this.
Output is what should be moderated by law.
No
Why are you entitled to use everyone else’s work? It should be secured in law that licensing applies to training data to avoid frivolous discussions like this. Then it’s an entirely opt-in solution, which works in the benefit of everyone except the people stealing data.
Output doesn’t matter since it’s pretty well settled it’s not derivative work (as much as I disagree with that statement).
No one is doing this
Cool, discussion over.
It is stealing data. In order to train on it they have to store the data. That’s a copyright violation. There’s no way to interpret it as not stealing data.
It is not stealing. The data is still there. It is, at worst, copyright violation.
Copyright violations is stealing
Stealing means someone has been deprived of their property, which is not the case for copyright violations.