89
OpenAI says it could ‘cease operating’ in the EU if it can’t comply with future regulation (www.theverge.com)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/tech@kbin.social
105 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In addition to the possible business threat, forcing OpenAI to identify its use of copyrighted data would expose the company to potential lawsuits. Generative AI systems like ChatGPT and DALL-E are trained using large amounts of data scraped from the web, much of it copyright protected. When companies disclose these data sources it leaves them open to legal challenges. OpenAI rival Stability AI, for example, is currently being sued by stock image maker Getty Images for using its copyrighted data to train its AI image generator.

Aaaaaand there it is. They don’t want to admit how much copyrighted materials they’ve been using.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Except that nobody has a superhuman ability to create endless amounts of content almost instantly based on said work.

People throw this "artists/writers use inspiration to create X" argument all the time and it just totally ignores the fact that we're not talking about some person spending 10s/100s/1000s of hours of their time to copy someone's working style.

It's a piece of software churning it out in seconds.

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

    Do generative AI models typically focus on ONE person's style? Don't they mix together influences from thousands of artists?

    FWIW this is not an area I read up on, and so I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

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

    If I would create a very slow AI that takes 10 or 100 hours for each response, would that make it any better in your opinion? I do not think calculation speed of a software is a good basis for legislation.

    If analyzing a piece of art and replicating parts of it without permission is illegal, then it should be illegal regardless of the tools used. However, that would make every single piece of art illegal, so it's not an option. If we make only the digital tools illegal then the question still remains where to draw the line. How much inefficiency is required for a tool to still be considered legal?

    Is Adobe Photoshop generative auto-fill legal?
    Is translating with deepl.com or the modern Google Translate equivalent legal?
    Are voice activated commands on your mobile phone legal (Cortana, Siri, Google)?

    All of these tools were trained in similar ways. All of these take away jobs (read: make work/life more efficient).

    It's hard to draw a line and I don't have any solution to offer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent