Comment on Asking ChatGPT to Repeat Words ‘Forever’ Is Now a Terms of Service Violation

• SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  As if they had permission to take it in the first place

  source

  • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s a hugely grey area but as far as the courts are concerned if it’s on the internet and it’s not behind a paywall then it’s publicly available information.

    I could write a script to just visit loads of web pages and scrape the text contents of those pages and drop them into a big huge text file essentially that’s exactly what they did.

    If those web pages are human accessible for free then I can’t see how they could be considered anything other than public domain information in which case you explicitly don’t need to ask the permission.

    source

    • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      If those web pages are human accessible for free then I can’t see how they could be considered anything other than public domain information

      I don’t think that’s the case. A photographer can post pictures on their website for free, but that doesn’t make it legal for anyone to slap the pictures on t-shirts and sell them.

      source

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Because that becomes distribution.

        Which is the crux of this issue: using the data for training was probably legal use under copyright, but if the AI begins to share training data that is distribution, and that is definitely illegal.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      as far as the courts are concerned if it’s on the internet and it’s not behind a paywall or password then it’s publicly available information.

      Er… no. That’s not in the slightest bit true.

      source

      • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That was the whole reason that Reddit debacle whole happened they wanted to stop the scraping of content so that they could sell it. Before that they were just taking it for free and there was no problem

        source
    • MadBigote@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You can go to your closest library and do the exact same thing: copy all books by hand, or whatever. Of you then use that information to make a product you sell, then you’re in trouble, as the books are still protected by copyright, even when they’re publicly available.

      source

      • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Only if I tried to sell the works as my own I’ve taken plenty of copies of notes for my own personal use

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Google provides sample text for every site that comes up in the results, and they put ads on the page too. If it’s publicly available we are well past at least a portion being fair use.

      source

      • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        A portion is legally protected. ALL data, not so much. Court cases on going.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Mahlzeit@feddit.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They almost certainly had, as it was downloaded from the net. Some stuff gets published accidentally or illegally, but that’s hardly something they can be expected to detect or police.

    source

    • MoogleMaestro@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They almost certainly had, as it was downloaded from the net.

      That's not how it works. That's not how anything works.

      source

      • Mahlzeit@feddit.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        How do you think it works?

        source
    • MNByChoice@midwest.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      that’s hardly something they can be expected to detect or police.

      Why not?

      I couldn’t, but I also do not have an “awesomely powerful AI on the verge of destroying humanity”. Seems it would be simple for them. I mean, if I had such a thing, I would be expected to use it to solve such simple problems.

      source

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        but I also do not have an “awesomely powerful AI on the verge of destroying humanity”

        Neither do they lol

        source
    • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Unless you’re arguing that any use of data from the Internet counts as “fair use” and therefore is excepted under copyright law, what you’re saying makes no sense.

      There may be an argument that some of the ways ChatGPT uses data could count as fair use. OTOH, when it’s spitting out its training material 1:1, that makes it pretty clear it’s copyright infringement.

      source

      • Mahlzeit@feddit.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        In reality, what you’re saying makes no sense.

        Making something available on the internet means giving permission to download it. Exceptions may be if it happens accidentally or if the uploader does not have the necessary permissions. If users had to make sure that everything was correct, they’d basically have to get a written permission via the post before visiting any page.

        Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement under US law. Using the web is rarely fair use because there is no copyright infringement. When training data is regurgitated, that is mostly fair use. If the data is public domain/out of copyright, then it is not.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• grue@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  In a lot of cases, they don’t have permission to not pass it along. Some of that training data was copyleft!

  source