"Copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression" and cannot be avoided.

Apparently, stealing other people’s work to create product for money is now “fair use” as according to OpenAI because they are “innovating” (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,” wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit “misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.”

  • lily33@lemm.ee
    30·
    1 year ago
    1. This is not REALLY about copyright - this is an attack on free and open AI models, which would be IMPOSSIBLE if copyright was extended to cover the case of using the works for training.
    2. It’s not stealing. There is literally no resemblance between the training works and the model. IP rights have been continuously strengthened due to lobbying over the last century and are already absurdly strong, I don’t understand why people on here want so much to strengthen them ever further.
    • MNByChoice@midwest.social
      13·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand why people on here want so much to strengthen them ever further.

      It is about a lawless company doing lawless things. Some of us want companies to follow the spirit, or at least the letter, of the law. We can change the law, but we need to discuss that.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          9·
          1 year ago

          The two big arguments are:

          • Substantial reproduction of the original work, you can get back substantial portions of the original work from an AI model’s output.
          • The AI model replaces the use of the original work. In short, a work that uses copyrighted material under fair use can’t be a replacement for the initial work.
          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            1·
            1 year ago

            you can get back substantial portions of the original work from an AI model’s output

            Have you confirmed this yourself?

            • chaos@beehaw.org
              5·
              1 year ago

              In its complaint, The New York Times alleges that because the AI tools have been trained on its content, they sometimes provide verbatim copies of sections of Times reports.

              OpenAI said in its response Monday that so-called “regurgitation” is a “rare bug,” the occurrence of which it is working to reduce.

              “We also expect our users to act responsibly; intentionally manipulating our models to regurgitate is not an appropriate use of our technology and is against our terms of use,” OpenAI said.

              The tech company also accused The Times of “intentionally” manipulating ChatGPT or cherry-picking the copycat examples it detailed in its complaint.

              https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/08/tech/openai-responds-new-york-times-copyright-lawsuit/index.html

              The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if you have to “manipulate” ChatGPT into spitting out training material word-for-word, the fact that it’s possible at all is proof that, intentionally or not, that material has been encoded into the model itself. That might still be fair use, but it’s a lot weaker than the original argument, which was that nothing of the original material really remains after training, it’s all synthesized and blended with everything else to create something entirely new that doesn’t replicate the original.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                1·
                1 year ago

                So that’s a no? Confirming it yourself here means doing it yourself. Have you gotten it to regurgitate a copyrighted work?

    • sculd@beehaw.orgOP
      12·
      1 year ago

      Sorry AIs are not humans. Also executives like Altman are literally being paid millions to steal creator’s work.

    • Chahk@beehaw.org
      11·
      1 year ago

      Agreed on both counts… Except Microsoft sings a different tune when their software is being “stolen” in the exact same way. They want to have it both ways - calling us pirates when we copy their software, but it’s “without merit” when they do it. Fuck’em! Let them play by the same rules they want everyone else to play.