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
[–] 3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

A continuous record of location + time or even something like "license plate at location plus time" is scary enough to me, and that's easily data a system could hold decades of

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

    Is that scary because it's a machine? Someone could tail you and follow you around and manually write it all down in a notebook.

    Yes the ease of data collection is an issue and I'm very much for better privacy rights for us all. But from the issue you've stated I'd be more afraid of what the 70 year old politicians who don't understand any of this would write up in a bill.

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

    Someone could tail you and follow you around and manually write it all down in a notebook.

    They could, and then they could also be charged with stalking.

    It's not just ease of collection. It's how the data is being retained, secured, and shared among a great many other things. Laws just haven't kept up with technology, partly because yeah 70yo politicians that don't even understand email but also because the corporations behind the technology lie and bribe to keep it that way, and face little consequences when they do so improperly or mishandle it. E.G.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cadillac-fairview-5-million-images-1.5781735

    When the government does it, we seem to have even less recourse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Would it be stalking if you signed a legal agreement that allowed them to track you? That is the reason the California law exists. Most of us have accepted a license agreement to us an app or service and in exchange we gave up privacy rights. And it may not have even been with the company consuming the data.

    Sadly the law requires you to contact everyone to demand your data be deleted. Passing a law to have the default be never store my data means most of social media goes away or goes behind a paywall. This also goes for any picture hosting company who charges you nothing for hosting as they use your images.

    This would also most likely mean that very explicit declarations must be made to allow anyone to use your material causing a lot of business to say it's too big of a risk and ditch a lot of support.

    Right now we kind of work on good faith which maybe doesn't work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent