Comment on Grisham, Martin join authors suing OpenAI: “There is nothing fair about this”

DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• livus@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  @DogMuffins

  As I understand it, it's not about the output it's about the input.

  Same basic principle as why universities don't simply give students a pirated copy of the entire textbook.

  source

  • Akisamb@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Same principle why Google can index pretty much all books in existence. They were sued over this and won. Same thing will happen here.

    As long as these models are not providing the copyrighted material to their users they should be safe.

    source

    • livus@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      @Akisamb yes I think you're right.

      That one was really interesting too. It has put a few more limits on its full text since those days, but I don't know how much that was a result of the suit.

      The authors from my country tried to have a group lawsuit against Google because within my country, if your books are in public libraries, then you get yearly compensation based on how many copies are in circulation.

      But, Google and America are both a lot more rich and powerful than a handful of authors from New Zealand, so I don't know what they though they could achieve.

      source
  • hypelightfly@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Universities giving away pirated textbooks is output.

    source

    • livus@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      @hypelightfly It's input into the students' brains.

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

    Hmm… if that were true then why would they be expecting $150k per book?

    My understanding us that in copyright infringement the liability is the amount of income you have deprived the author of. If you’ve only copied 1 book and not produced derivative works then the loss is the value of the book.

    source

    • livus@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      @DogMuffins

      This is why it's such an interesting case. We think of the LLM as one entity, but another way of looking at it is that it's a lot of iterations.

      The pirated book text files that are doing the rounds with the AI seem to be multiple iterations as well.

      One $150 textbook x 1,000 students = $150k.

      Even with public libraries, they pay volume licenses for ebooks based on how many "copies" can be lended simultaneously per year. It's not considered as the library owning one copy when digital files are being lent.

      source

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Sorry mate this is just daft.

        Did you read the article? Most of it is about derivative works.

        LLMs fuel AI tools that “can spit out derivative works: material that is based on, mimics, summarizes, or paraphrases” their works, allegedly turning their works into “engines of” authors’ “own destruction” by harming the book market for them.

        They’re trying to claim that they have been financially harmed by the unauthorised use of their work.

        Even if LLMs are separate iterations you could train multiple LLMs with one copy of the book - the library is not loaning multiple copies simultaneously.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It may not calculate well mathematically, if not factually at all, but ChatGPT can sure as hell wax poetically with some direction and input.

  But the best I can say is that, for now, ChatGPT should be only be relegated to Fanfics, tbh, lmao…

  source