Comment on George R.R. Martin and other authors sue OpenAI for copyright infringement

• Aezora@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I don’t see why they (authors/copyright holders) have any right to prevent use of their product beyond purchasing. If I legally own a copy of Game of Thrones, I should be able to do whatever the crap I want with it.

  And legally, I can. I can quote parts of it, I can give it to a friend to read, I can rip out a page and tape it to the wall, I can teach my kid how to read with it.

  Why should I not be allowed to train my AI with it?

  source

  • Anonymousllama@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Next if you come up with some ideas of your own fantasy environment after watching game of thrones, they’ll want to chase you down considering they didn’t give you expressed permission to be “inspired” by their work 🙄

    source
  • gmtom@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Its amazing how many people are against overly restrictive copyright rules that hamper creativity… until it involves AI.

    source
  • koljarhr@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Ownership is never absolute. Just like with music - you are not allowed to use it commercially i.e. in your restaurant, club, beauty salon, etc. without paying extra. You are also not allowed to do the same with books - for example, you shouldn’t share scans online, although it’s “your” book.

    However, it is not clear how AI infringes on the rights of authors in this case. Because a human may read a book and produce a similar book in the same style legally.

    source
  • admin@lemmy.my-box.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And basically, I can. I can quote parts of it, I can give it to a friend to read, I can rip out a page and tape it to the wall, I can teach my kid how to read with it.

    These are things you’re allowed to do with your copy of the book. But you are not allowed to, for example create a copy of it and give that to a friend, create a play or a movie out of it. You don’t own the story, you own a copy of the medium.

    As to why it’s unethical, see my comment here.

    source

    • koljarhr@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I agree, the ownership is not absolute.

      However, just as a person does not own the work of an author, the authors do not own words, grammar, sentences or even their own style. Similarly, they do not own the names of the characters in their books or the universe in which the plot is happening. They even do not “own” their own name.

      So the only question remaining becomes whether is AI allowed to “read” a book. In the future authors might prohibit it, but hey, we’re just going to end up with a slightly more archaic-speaking GPT over time because it will not train on new releases. And that’s fine by me.

      source

      • admin@lemmy.my-box.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think that in the end it should be a matter of licenseship (?). The author might give you the right to train a model on it, if you pay them for it. Just like you’d have get permission if you want to turn their work into a play or a show.

        I don’t think the argument (not yours, but often seen in discussions like these) about “humans can be inspired by a work, so a computer should be allowed to be as well” holds any ground. For it would take a human much more time to make a style their own, as well as to recreate large amounts of it. For a ai model the same is a matter of minutes and seconds, respectively. So any comparison is moot, imho.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Grimy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Okay, the problem is there are only about three companies with either enough data or enough money to buy it. Any open source or small time AI model is completely dead in the water. Since our economy is quickly moving towards being AI driven, it would basically guarantee our economy is completely owned by a handful of companies like Getty Images.

  Any artist with less weight than GRR and Taylor Swift is still screwed, they might get a peanut or two at most.

  I’d rather get an explosion of culture, even if it mean GRR doesn’t get a last fat paycheck and Hollywood loses control of its monopoly.

  source

  • admin@lemmy.my-box.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I get it. I download movies without paying for it too. It’s super convenient, and much cheaper than doing it the right thing.

    But I don’t pretend it’s ethical. And I certainly don’t charge other people money to benefit from it.

    Either there are plenty of people who are fine with their work being used for AI purposes (especially in a open source model), or they don’t agree to it - in which case it would be unethical to do so.

    Just because something is practical, doesn’t mean it’s right.

    source

    • Grimy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      There’s so much more at stake, it’s not remotely the same as pirating. AI is poised to take over any kind of job that requires only a computer and a telephone. I’d rather have robust open source options that a handful of companies exerting a subscription tax on half the economy.

      Any overt legislation will only hurt us the consumer while 99.9% of the actual artists and contributers won’t see any benefit whatsoever.

      Short of aggressively nationalizing any kind of AI endeavour, making it as free and accessible as possible is the best option imo.

      source
• koljarhr@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Assuming that books used for GPT training were indeed purchased, not pirated, and since “AI training” was not prohibited at the time of the purchase, the engineers had every right to use them. Maybe authors in the future could prohibit “AI training” but for the books purchased before they do, “AI training” is a fair usage.

  source

  • admin@lemmy.my-box.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think we’ll find our whether or not that is true will be decided in this trial.

    source
• Touching_Grass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  We could get Elon musk to develop a corpus and train all AI on that instead of training AI on a corpus from scraping websites.

  source

  • Fraylor@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Elon can’t develop shit.

    source