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.”

  • Phanatik@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 个月前

    First of all, we’re not having a debate and this isn’t a courtroom so avoid the patronising language.

    Second of all, my “belief” on the models’ plagiarism is based on technical knowledge of how the models work and not how I think they work.

    a machine is now able to do a similar job to a human

    This would be impressive if it was true. An LLM is not intelligent simply through its appearance of intelligence.

    It’s enabling humans

    It’s a chat bot that’s automated Google searches, let’s be clear about what this can do. It’s taken natural language processing and applied it through an optimisation algorithm to produce human-like responses.

    No, I disagree at a fundamental level. Humans need to compete against each other and ourselves to improve. Just because an LLM can write a book for you, doesn’t mean you’ve written a book. You’re just lazy. You don’t want to put in the work any other writer in existence has done, to mull over their work and consider the emotions and effect they want to have on the reader. To what extent can an LLM replicate the way George RR Martin describes his world without entirely ripping off his work?

    i’d question why it’s unethical, and also suggest that “stolen” is another emotive term here not meant to further the discussion by rational argument

    If I take a book you wrote from you without buying it or paying you for it, what would you call that?