this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
108 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

60113 readers
4001 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
108
2 authors say OpenAI 'ingested' their books to train ChatGPT. Now they're suing, and a 'wave' of similar court cases may follow. (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 1 year ago by AlmightySnoo to c/technology
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Two award-winning authors recently sued OpenAI, accusing the generative-AI bastion of violating copyright law by using their published books to train ChatGPT without their consent.

Filed in late June, the lawsuit claims that ChatGPT's underlying large language model "ingested" the copyrighted work of the case's plaintiffs, authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay. They argue that ChatGPT's ability to produce detailed summaries of their works indicates their books were included in datasets used to train the technology.

all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't really see the merit in these cases.

If I read a book in the library (so not even purchasing it) and have some great idea... Take it to market and make billions off of it. The Author has no stake in my financial success. Why would this be any different for ChatGPT or other AI products? If I write a summary of a book, and post it online for a journal/website and I make some ad revenue from it... I'm also protected and there is no recourse for the original author.

Copyright laws always protects derivative works. Anything and everything that ChatGPT would create would be derivative.

[–] ultratiem 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah tbh I don’t think any sane person does. So what people who first taught them to read deserve a cut?

Some philosophers believe you cannot imagine something that does not currently exist. All your thoughts and “creativity” are a slave to it.

But in true economy, there’s going to be litigation and money will be made because money always has to be made. This seems akin to the patent trolls some years back. And the RIAA well before that.

[–] Teknikal 8 points 1 year ago

I don't think these cases have even a slight hope they really shouldn't unless it was illegal to read their work in the first place. In which case being an author should be the actual crime.

Just silly imo.

[–] sugarfree 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AI read their books, the horror.

[–] smokeythebear 8 points 1 year ago

Someone finally read their book and now they're angry about it lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I love watching AI mess up this notion of ownership.

[–] YoungPrinceAmmon 1 points 1 year ago

Another no-names lost in modern world