768
OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
306 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    But they don’t purchase the data. That’s the whole problem.

    And copyright is absolutely violated by training off it. It’s being used to make money and no longer falls under even the widest interpretation of free use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How do they get the data if its not purchased or freely available

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    It may be freely available for non-commercial works, eg. Photos on Photobucket, internet archive free book archives, etc.

    Most everything is on the internet these days, copyrighted or not. I’m sure if I googled enough I could find the entire text of Harry Potter for free. I still haven’t purchased it, and technically it’s not legally freely available. But in training these models I guarantee they didn’t care where the data came from, just that it was data.

    I’m against piracy as well for the record, but pretty much everything is available through torrenting and pirate sites at this point, copyright be damned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Don't care, that's not mine or these LLMs problem they don't secure their copyright. They shouldn't come asking for others to pay for them not securing their data. I see it as a double edged sword.

    I really hope this is a wake up call to all creative types to pack up and not use the internet like a street corner while they busk.

    If they want to come online to contribute like everybody else. Just have fun and post stuff, that's great. But all of them are no different then any other greedy corporation. They all want more toll roads. When they do make it and earn millions and get our attention they exploit it with more ads. It swallows all the free good content. Sites gear towards these rich creators. They lawyer up and sue everybody and everything that looks or sounds like them. We lose all our good spaces to them.

    I hope the LLM allows regular people to shit post in peace finally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    You need to expand on how learning from something to make money is somehow using the original material to make money. Considering that's how art works in general, I'm having a hard time taking the side of "learning from media to make your own is against copyright". As long as they don't reproduce the same thing as the original, I don't see any issues with it. If they learned from Lord of the rings to then make "the Lord of the rings" then yes, that'd be infringement. But if they use that data to make a new IP with original ideas, then how is that bad for the world/ artists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Creating an AI model is a commercial work. They’re made to make money. Now these models are dependent on other artists data to train on. The models would be useless if they weren’t able to train on anything.

    I hold the stance that using copyrighted data as part of a training set is a violation of copyright. That still hasn’t been fully challenged in court, so there’s no specific legal definition yet.

    Due to the requirement of copywritten materials to make the model function I feel that they are using copyrighted works in order to build a commercial product.

    Also AI doesn’t learn. LLMs build statistical models based on sentence structure of what they’ve seen before. There’s no level of understanding or inherent knowledge, and there’s nothing new being added.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent