In your mind are the publishers the rich chumps, or Microsoft?
For copyleft to work, copyright needs to be strong.
Comment on Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim
grue@lemmy.world 10 months agoIf I want to be able to argue that having any copyleft stuff in the training dataset makes all the output copyleft – and I do – then I necessarily have to also side with the rich chumps as a matter of consistency. It’s not ideal, but it can’t be helped. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
wewbull@feddit.uk 10 months ago
grue@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I was just repeating the language the parent commenter used (probably should’ve quoted it in retrospect). In this case, “rich chumps” are George R.R. Martin and other authors suing Microsoft.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Wait. I first thought this was sarcasm. Is this sarcasm?
grue@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No. I really do think that all AI output is copyleft if there’s any copyleft in the training dataset.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Huh. Obviously, you don’t believe that a copyleft license should trump other licenses (or lack thereof). So, what are you hoping this to achieve?
grue@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m not sure what you mean. No licenses “trump” any other license; that’s not how it works. You can only make something that’s a derivative work of multiple differently-licensed things if the terms of all the licenses allow it, something the FSF calls “compatibility.” Obviously, a proprietary license can never be compatible with a copyleft one, so what I’m hoping to achieve is a ruling that says any AI whose training dataset included both copyleft and proprietary items has completely legally-unusable output. (And also that any AI whose training dataset includes copyleft items along with permissively-licensed and public domain ones must have its output be copyleft.)