Technology

59709 readers

5673 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

530

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s to c/technology

313 comments fedilink hide all child comments

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says::Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

(page 4) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ChrislyBear 1 points 10 months ago (16 children)

So if I look at a painting study it and then emulate the original painter's artstyle, then I'm in breach of their copyright?

Or if I read a lot of fantasy like GRRM or JK Rowling and I also write a fantasy book and say, that they were my Inspiration, I'm breaching their copyright??

That's not how it works, and if it is, it shouldn't be!

Sure, if a start reproducing work, i.e. plagiarizing the work of others, then I'm doing sth wrong.

And to spin this further: If I raise a child on children's books by a specific author, am I breaching copyright, when my child enters the workforce and starts to earn money???? Stupid, yes! But so are the copyright claims against LLMs, in my opinion.

[–] Jomega 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

You're comparing something humans often do subconsciously to a machine that was programmed to do that. Unless you're arguing that intent doesn't matter ~~(pretty much every judge in America will tell you it does)~~ then we're talking about 2 completely different things.

Edit: Disregard the struck out portion of my comment. Apparently I don't know shit about law. My point is that comparing a a quirk of human psychology to the strict programming of a machine is a false equivalency.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)

load more comments