Comment on "Did you realize that we live in a reality where SciHub is illegal, and OpenAI is not?"

Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They’re not serving you the content they sampled, and that makes all the difference.

  source

  • localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Well if you believe that you should look at the times lawsuit.

    Word for word on hundreds/thousands of pages of stolen content, its damming

    source

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Why do you assume that I haven’t? The case hasn’t been resolved and it’s not clear how The NY Times did what they claim, which is may as well be manipulation. It’s a fair rebuttal by OpenAI. The Times haven’t provided the steps they used to achieve that.

      So unless that’s cleared up, it’s not damming in the slightest. Not yet, anyway. And that still doesn’t invalidate my statement above, because it’s still under very specific circumstances when that happens.

      source

      • Emy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Also intention is pretty important when determining the guilt of many crimes. OpenAI doesnt intentionally spit back an author’s exact words, their intention is to summarize and create unique content.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    So it’s content laundering

    source

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What a colorful mischaracterization. It sounds clever at face value but it’s really naive. If anything about this is deceptive, it’s the lengths that people go to to slander what they dislike.

      source

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Actually content laundering is the best term I’ve heard to describe the process. Just like money laundering, you no longer know the source and know it’s technically legal to use and distribute.

        I mean, if the copyrighted content wasn’t so critical, they would train models without it. Their essentially derivative works, but no one wants to acknowledge it because it would either require changing our copyright laws or make this potentially lucrative and important work illegal.

        source

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

        I feel most people critical of AI don’t know how a neural network works…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s great how for most of us we’re taught that just changing the order of words is still plagerism. For them they frequently end up using the exact same words as other things and people still argue it somehow is intelligent and somehow not plagerism.

    source

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      “Changing the order of words” is what it does? That’s news to me. And do you have examples of it “using the exact same words as other things” without prompt manipulation?

      source

      • asret@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Why does the prompting matter? If I “prompt” a band to play copyrighted music does that mean they get a free pass?

        source

        • -> View More Comments