Comment on "Did you realize that we live in a reality where SciHub is illegal, and OpenAI is not?"
Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Oh OpenAI is just as illegal as SciHub. More so because they’re making money off of stolen IP. It’s just that the Oligarchs get to pick and choose. So if course they choose the arrangement that gives them more control over knowledge.
Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 months ago
They’re not serving you the content they sampled, and that makes all the difference.
localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months 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
Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 months 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.
Emy@lemmy.world 8 months 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.
UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
So it’s content laundering
Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 months 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.
jacksilver@lemmy.world 8 months 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.
Jilanico@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I feel most people critical of AI don’t know how a neural network works…
Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 months 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.
Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 months 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?
asret@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Why does the prompting matter? If I “prompt” a band to play copyrighted music does that mean they get a free pass?