this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
518 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

59118 readers
3269 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Two authors sued OpenAI, accusing the company of violating copyright law. They say OpenAI used their work to train ChatGPT without their consent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Too be honest, I hope they win. While I my passion is technology, I am not a fan of artificial intelligence at all! Decision-making is best left up to the human being. I can see where AI has its place like in gaming or some other things but to mainstream it and use it to decide who's resume is going to be viewed and/or who will be hired; hell no.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

use it to decide who’s resume is going to be viewed and/or who will be hired

Luckily that's far removed from ChatGPT and entirely indepentent from the question whether copyrighted works may be used to train conversational AI Models or not.

[–] Chailles 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't need AI to unfairly filter out résumés, they've been doing it already for years. Also the argument that a human would always make the best decision really doesn't work that well. A human is biased and limited. They can only do so much and if you make someone go through a 100 résumés, you're basically just throwing out all the applicants who happen to be in the middle of that pile as they are not as outstanding compared towards the first and last applicants in the eyes of the human mind.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I get that HR does this shit all of the time. But at least without AI, your resume or CV has a better chance of making it to a human being.

[–] BURN 2 points 1 year ago

I got a degree with a sub focus in AI and I hate where this has gone extremely fast. It’s not exciting anymore, it’s just depressing. I’m trying to get out of tech sooner rather than later and go live off the grid somewhere.

AI will kill society long before it’ll save it

[–] ulu_mulu 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not against artificial intelligence, it could be a very valuable tool, but that's nowhere near a valid reason to break laws as OpenAI has done, that's why I too hope authors win.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What laws are you saying they've broken?

[–] ulu_mulu 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Copyright, this is not the first time they're sued for it apparently (violating copyright is a crime).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scraping the web is legal and training AI on data is also legal.

[–] ulu_mulu 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Reusing the content you scraped, if copyright protected, is not.

Edit: unless you get the authorization of the original authors but OpenAI didn't even asked, that's why it's a crime.

[–] GnothiSeauton 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That really will be the question at hand. Is the ai producing work that could be considered transformative, educational, or parody? The answer is of course yes, it is capable of doing all three of those things, but it's also capable of being coaxed into reproducing things exactly.

I don't know if current copyright laws are capable of dealing with the ai Renaissance.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah it is. The only protection in copyright is called derivative works, and an AI is not a derivative of a book, No more than your brain is after you've read one.

The only exception would be if you manage to overtrain and encode the contents of the book inside of the model file. That's not what happened here because I'll chat GPT output was a summary.

The only valid claim here is the fact that the books were not supposed to be on the public internet and it's likely that the way open AI the books in the first place was through some piracy website through scraping the web.

At that point you just have to hold them liable for that act of piracy, not the fact that the model release was an act of copyright violation.