• @Meseta@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      You’re either a copyright bootlicker or an AI bootlicker in this thread, there’s no middle ground.

    • @fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      My bad, I’ll just let big corporations train on every piece of my personal creative output as “Fair Use” so they can sell it for profit. That’ll show ‘em!

      Satire aside, you don’t seem to understand what copyright is or are confusing it with laissez-faire capitalism. You can’t bootlick rights.

      Brb, going to go bootlick the European Convention on Human Rights.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    82 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The result, experts speculate, could be devastating to OpenAI, including the destruction of ChatGPT’s dataset and fines up to $150,000 per infringing piece of content.

    If the Times were to follow through and sue ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, NPR suggested that the lawsuit could become “the most high-profile” legal battle yet over copyright protection since ChatGPT’s explosively popular launch.

    This speculation comes a month after Sarah Silverman joined other popular authors suing OpenAI over similar concerns, seeking to protect the copyright of their books.

    As of this month, the Times’ TOS prohibits any use of its content for “the development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system.”

    In the memo, the Times’ chief product officer, Alex Hardiman, and deputy managing editor Sam Dolnick said a top “fear” for the company was “protecting our rights” against generative AI tools.

    the memo asked, echoing a question being raised in newsrooms that are beginning to weigh the benefits and risks of generative AI.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • @GustavoM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Isn’t that… weird? Like someone would have reinvented the wheel (literally), to end up being much better than the “original” wheel… and pissing off mechanics worldwide because that’d make em lose their jobs because of some random, nonsensical reason. Idk, its like folks forgot that the AI can be EASILY manipulated. But nooooooooo “whining is easier, lads! Let’s whine instead of making things better!”… heh. Humanity is so fucked.

  • Silverseren
    link
    fedilink
    342 years ago

    Too many people have copies of the full database at this point for such a thing to mean much. And there’s too many other versions that have been produced since to matter either.

  • theodewere
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    i guess that bot’s sweatin’ tonight… maybe the stress is what’s causing the errors…

  • @ricecooker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 years ago

    If ChatGPT gets erased and rescanned with new stuff, I can see different “flavors” popping up to replace it. For example: Conservative GPT, no content related to trans, evolution, or climate change. Vetted Wikipedia entries only.

    • @QHC@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      That probably already exists, why would one of the many LLM systems out there having to re-train impact anything but that one program?

    • @Fixbeat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      82 years ago

      One of my relatives tried the Bing chat thing when it came out. He was mad that it couldn’t come up with anything good Trump had done.

    • @golli@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      182 years ago

      They could, but presumably they want to make business and sell their products in countries that do have those copyright protections or to other companies from there.

    • Hello Hotel
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Make another “russian bot” perhaps. /s Honestly, russia is good for getting away with piriting things, Because Corruption.

  • @errer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    412 years ago

    Could this headline possibly have any more weasel word qualifiers? Lots of things “could” happen.

        • @MooseBoys@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          unbelievably vast cost

          A quick search indicates training ChatGPT-4 cost around $100M - really not that much for a company valued at $29B.

    • @BURN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 years ago

      Modern media is full of it so they can’t be sued for anything. And also because there’s probably little fact in at least a few parts of the article so they’re posting it as “speculative”

    • Troy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      172 years ago

      Classic joke, something like: if you owe the bank $100, it’s your problem; if you owe them a million, it’s their problem.

    • @DrM@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      612 years ago

      Yeah I don’t get it. ChatGPT is not “Fair use” and there is no credit given to anyone, it’s a solid case against them

      • @diffuselight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -22 years ago

        It’s wishful thinking on your part. Every AI model in existence, from computer vision to the photo adjustments in your phone camera was trained this way.

        The only reason there’s a stink now is that certain lobbies suddenly lose their job as opposed to blue collar workers.

        But there’s more than a decade of precedent now to fall back on and not one legal case to show that it’s not fair use.

        So would you kindly cite the case decisions that back up your assertion? Or are you just hallucinating like an LLM because you want a certain outcome to be true? Geez, I wonder where the technology learned that.

      • @makyo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        192 years ago

        I just wonder if they’ll get out of it because LLMs do reword the information instead of spitting it back out verbatim. It’s the same reason I think the image generators are safe from copyright law - it’s just different enough that they could plausibly convince a judge with a fair use argument.

        What bothers me even more is all the text they had to scrape to create ChatGPT… That seems like a novel problem for the legal system because you know there’s no way they paid for all of it.

  • @TheObserver@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -82 years ago

    LAME. Butthurt people is all i see. People like that are what cause huge roadblocks in advancing humans. I wish someone made a law that made it impossible to force someone to stop doing something simply because they are using ai to train and it hurts their pockets. Let AI learn what we’ve created. The possibilities are endless. So many good things can come from it but all everyone wants to do is look at the negatives. Of which a massive majority are easily solvable.

    One tiny example is think of what ai can do in a few years time with training on medicine alone. For all we know the ai can figure out cancer for us. But with everyone clamping down on this shit we’ll never know.

    Leave it to humans to ruin great things. If aliens ever visit this planet I’m ratting out every last human against technology 🤣

    • @MooseBoys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -12 years ago

      OpenAI has a valuation of $29B. They could easily afford to license the entirety of the NTY content but did not do so.