Technology

60058 readers

2379 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

766

OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

301 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

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Because in practical terms, writers and artists' livelihoods are being threatened by AIs who were trained on their work without their consent or compensation. Ultimately the only valid justification for copyright is to enable the career of professional creators who contribute to our culture. We knew how ideas and communication worked when copyright was first created. That is why it's a limited time protection, a compromise.

All the philosophical arguments about the nature of ideas and learning, and how much a machine may be like a person don't change that if anyone dedicates years of their efforts to develop their skills only to be undercut by an AI who was trained on their own works, is an incredibly shitty position to be in.

[–] poweruser@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

That's actually not what copyright is for. Copyright was made to enhance the public culture by promoting the creation of art.

If these record label types impede public culture then they are antithetical to copyright

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

All the philosophical arguments about the nature of ideas and learning, and how much a machine may be like a person don’t change that if anyone dedicates years of their efforts to develop their skills only to be undercut by an AI who was trained on their own works, is an incredibly shitty position to be in.

So should Dread Zeplin be hauled off to jail because they created derivative works without permission? I mean maybe they should, but not for copyright imo. How about the fan Star Wars movies getting their balls sued off by Disney?

writers and artists’ livelihoods are being threatened by AIs who were trained on their work without their consent or compensation

Guess what? The actual copyright owners of the world; those who own tens of thousands or millions of copyrighted works, will be the precise individuals paying for and developing that kind of automation, and in the current legal interpretation of copyright, its their property to do so with. This outrage masturbation the internet is engaged in ignores the current reality of copyright, that its not small makers and artists benefiting from it but billion dollar multinational corporations benefiting from it.

This is a philosophical argument and an important one: Should we legally constrain the flow and use of ideas because an individuals right to extract profit from an idea.

I don't think so.

[–] Sheik@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Dread Zeppelin could have been sued. They were just lucky to be liked by Robert Plant.

As for the Star Wars fan movie, the copyright claim about the music was dropped because it was frivolous. The video creator made a deal with Lucasfilm to use Star Wars copyrighted material, he didn’t just go yolo.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are conditioning the rights of artists making derivative works to the rights of systems being used to take advantage of those artists without consent or compensation. Not only those are two different situations but also supporting the latter doesn't mean supporting the former.

Like I said somewhere in this discussion, AI are not people. People have rights that tools do not. If you want to argue in favor of parody and fan artists, do that. If you want to speak out again how the current state of copyright makes it so corporations rather than the actual artists gets the rights and profit over the works they create, do that. Leaping in defense of AI is not it.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm challenging the legal precedent of the barrier of creating derivative works in any media, including AI.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/3CO7FPU7a2g

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.