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.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you sample someone else’s music and turn around and try to sell it, without first asking permission from the original artist, that’s copyright infringement.

    I think you completely and thoroughly do not understand what I’m saying or why I’m saying it. No where did I suggest that I do not understand modern copyright. I’m saying I’m questioning my belief in this extreme interpretation of copyright which is represented by exactly what you just parroted. That this interpretation is both functionally and materially unworkable, but also antithetical to a reasonable understanding of how ideas and communication work.

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

          AI is not a person. If you replace it with a person in an analogy, that’s a whole different discussion.

          We actually do restrict how tools can engage with artworks all the time. You know, “don’t take pictures”.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s life under capitalism.

      I agree with you in essence (I’ve put a lot of time into a free software game).

      However, people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and until we learn to leave capitalism behind artists have to protect their work to survive. To eat. To feed their kids. And pay their rent.

      Unless OpenAi is planning to pay out royalties to everyone they stole from, what their doing is illegal and immoral under our current, capitalist paradigm.

      • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, this is definitely leaning a little too “People shouldn’t pump their own gas because gas attendants need to eat, feed their kids, pay rent” for me.