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.

    • benni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but if you wanna act out the contents of the book and sell it as a movie, you need to buy the rights.

      • nednobbins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes but there’s a threshold of how much you need to copy before it’s an IP violation.

        Copying a single word is usually only enough if it’s a neologism.
        Two matching words in a row usually isn’t enough either.
        At some point it is enough though and it’s not clear what that point is.

        On the other hand it can still be considered an IP violation if there are no exact word matches but it seems sufficiently similar.

        Until now we’ve basically asked courts to step in and decide where the line should be on a case by case basis.

        We never set the level of allowable copying to 0, we set it to “reasonable”. In theory it’s supposed to be at a level that’s sufficient to, “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).

        Why is it that with AI we take the extreme position of thinking that an AI that makes use of any information from humans should automatically be considered to be in violation of IP law?

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Making use of the information is not a violation – making use of that violation to turn a profit is a violation. AI software that is completely free for the masses without any paid upgrades can look at whatever it wants. As soon as a corporation is making money on it though, it’s in violation and needs to pay up.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s also just not fair, unless your going to rule that nothing an AI produces can be copyrighted. Otherwise some billionaire could just flood the office with copyrighted requests and copyrighted everything… hell if they really did that they would probably convince the government to let them hire outside contractors for free to speed up the process…

          • nednobbins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is that intended as a legal or moral position?

            As far as I know, the law doesn’t care much if you make money off of IP violations. There are many cases of individuals getting hefty fines for both the personal use and free distribution of IP. I think if there is commercial use of IP the profits are forfeit to the IP holder. I’m not a lawyer though, so don’t bank on that.

            There’s still the initial question too. At present, we let the courts decide if the usage, whether profitable or not, meets the standard of IP violation. Artists routinely take inspiration from one another and sometimes they take it too far. Why should we assume that AI automatically takes it too far and always meets the standard of IP violation?

          • GroggyGuava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Idk that feels like saying that as soon as you sell the skills you learned on YouTube, you should have to start paying the people you learned from, since you’re “using” their copyrighted material to turn profit.

            I don’t agree whatsoever that copyright extends to inspiration of other artists/data models. Unless they recreate what you’ve made in a sufficiently similar manor, they haven’t copied you.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why is it that with AI we take the extreme position of thinking that an AI that makes use of any information from humans should automatically be considered to be in violation of IP law?

          Luddites throwing their sabots into the machinery.

      • LordShrek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        yes, but that’s a different situation. with the LLM, the issue is that the text from copyrighted books are influencing the way it speaks. this is the same with humans.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Mods remove this comment as this instance no longer tolerates discussions of piracy. We went through this last week