this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
554 points (95.6% liked)

Technology

69545 readers
3338 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 2 years ago (55 children)

The authors added that OpenAI’s LLMs could result in derivative work “that is based on, mimics, summarizes, or paraphrases” their books, which could harm their market.

Ok, so why not wait until those hypothetical violations occur and then sue?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (34 children)

Because the outcome of suing first is to address the potential outcome of what could happen based on what OenAI is doing right now. Kind of like how safety regulations are intended to prevent future problems based on what has happened previously, but expanded similar potential dangers instead of waiting for each exact scenario to happen.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 years ago (15 children)

But if OpenAI cannot legally be inspired by your work, the implication is humans can't either.

It's not how copyright works. Transformative work is transformative.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Generative AI training is not the same thing as human inspiration. And transformative work has this far has only been performed by a human. Not by a machine used by a human.

Clearly using a machine that simply duplicates a work to resell runs afoul of copyright.

What about using a machine that slightly rewords that work? Is that still allowed? Or a machine that does a fairly significant rewording? What if it sort of does a mashup of two works? Or a mashup of a dozen? Or of a thousand?

Under what conditions does it become ok to feed a machine with someone's art (without their permission) and sell the resulting output?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

That's the point, it's almost a ship of Theseus situation.

At what point does the work become its own compared to a copy? How much variation is required? How many works are needed for sampling before its designing information based on large scale sentence structures instead of just copying exactly what it's reading?

Legislation can't occur until a benchmark is reached or we just say wholesale that AI is copyright infringement based purely on its existence and training.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments (51 replies)