Comment

Comment on Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim

bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

In fact they are designing services that are as close as possible to the services provided by the original work creators.

I disagree and I feel like you’re equally misrepresenting the issue if I must be as well. LLMs can do far more than simply write stories. They can write stories, but that is just one capability among numerous.

I’m not a lawyer or legal expert, I’m just giving a layman’s opinion on a topic. I hope Sam Altman and his merry band get nailed to the wall, I really do. It’s going to be a clusterfuck of endless legal battles for the foreseeable future, especially now that OpenAI isn’t even pretending to be nonprofit anymore.

source

Sort:hotnew top

wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This story is about a non-fiction work.

What is the purpose of a non-fiction work? It’s to give the reader further knowledge on a subject.

Why does an LLM manufacturer train their model on a non-fiction work? To be able to act as a substitute source of the knowledge.

End result is that

the original is made redundant.

the original author is no longer credited.

So, not only have they stolen their work, they’ve stolen their income and reputation.
source
- bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If you’re using an LLM as any form of authoritative source-and literally any LLM specifically warns NOT to do that–then you’re going to have a bad time. No one is using them to learn in any serious capacity. Ideally, the AI should absolutely be citing its sources, and if someone is able to figure out how to do that reliably, they’ll be made quite rich, I’d imagine.
  
  source
  - Stoneykins@mander.xyz ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    For someone who claimed to not be a fan of OpenAI, you sure do know all the fan arguments against regulation for AI.
    
    source
    bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    -> View More Comments
SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
There’s a big difference between borrowing inspiration and just using entire paragraphs of text or images wholesale. If GRRM uses entire paragraphs of JK Rowling with just the names changed and uses the same cover with a few different colors you have the same fight. LLM can do the first, but also does the second.

The “in the style of” is a different issue that’s being debated, as style isn’t protected by law. But apparently if you ask in the style of, the LLM can get lazy and produces parts of the (copyrighted) source material instead of something original.

source
- Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Just as with the right query you could get a LLM to output a paragraph of copyrighted material, you can with the right query get Google to give you a link to copyrighted material. Does that make all search engines illegal?
  
  source
  - SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Legally it’s very different. One is a link, the other content. It’s the same difference as pointing someone to the street where the dealers hang out or opening you coat and asking how many grams you want.
    
    source
    Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Websites that provide links to copyrighted material are illegal in the US. It’s why torrent sites are taken down and need to be hosted in countries with different copyright laws .
    
    So Google can be used to pirate but that’s not it’s intention. It requires careful queries to get Google to show pirate links. Making a tool that could be used for unintentional copyright violation illegal makes all search engines illegal.
    
    It could even make all programming languages illegal. I could use C to write a program to add two numbers or to crawl the web and return illegal movies.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments