507
2 authors say OpenAI 'ingested' their books to train ChatGPT. Now they're suing, and a 'wave' of similar court cases may follow. (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Two authors sued OpenAI, accusing the company of violating copyright law. They say OpenAI used their work to train ChatGPT without their consent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 75 points 3 years ago* (9 children)

AI fear is going to be the trojan horse for even harsher and stupider 'intellectual property' laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 44 points 3 years ago* (7 children)

    Yeah, they want the right only to protect who copies their work and distributes it to other people, but who's able to actually read and learn from their work.

    It's asinine and we should be rolling back copy right, not making it more strict. This 70 year plus the life of the author thing is bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Copyright of code/research is one of the biggest scams in the world. It hinders development and only exists so the creator can make money, plus it locks knowledge behind a paywall

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

    Researchers pay for publication, and then the publisher doesn't pay for peer review, then charges the reader to read research that they basically just slapped on a website.

    It's the publisher middlemen that need to be ousted from academia, the researchers don't get a dime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Remember, Creative Commons licenses often require attribution if you use the work in a derivative product, and sometimes require ShareAlike. Without these things, there would be basically no protection from a large firm copying a work and calling it their own.

    Rolling pack copyright protection in these areas will enable large companies with traditional copyright systems to wholesale take over open source projects, to the detriment of everyone. Closed source software isn't going to be available to AI scrapers, so this only really affects open source projects and open data, exactly the sort of people who should have more protection.

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

    There’s also GPL, which states that derivations of GPL code can only be used in GPL software. GPL also states that GPL software must also be open source.

    ChatGPT is likely trained on GPL code. Does that mean all code ChatGPT generates is GPL?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there would be an update to GPL that makes it clear that any machine learning model trained on GPL code must also be GPL.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    Closed source software isn't going to be available to AI scrapers, so this only really affects open source projects and open data, exactly the sort of people who should have more protection.

    The point of open source is contributing to the crater all of humanity. If open source contributes to an AI which can program, and that programming AI leads to increased productivity and ability in the general economy then open source has served its purpose, and people will likely continue to contribute to it.

    Creative of Commons applies to when you redistribute code. (In the ideal case) AI does not redistribute code, it learns from it.

    And the increased ability to program by the average person will allow programmers to be more productive and as a result allow more things to be open source and more things to be programmed in general. We will all benefit, and that is what open source is for.

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

    Since any reductions to copyright, if they occur at all, will take a while to happen, I hope someone comes up with an opt-in limited term copyright. At max, I'd be satisfied with a 45-50 year limited copyright on everything I make, and could see going shorter under plenty of circumstances.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent