this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
500 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59436 readers
3259 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] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't really understand why people are so upset by this. Except for people who train networks based on someone's stolen art style, people shouldn't be getting mad at this. OpenAI has practically the entire internet as its source, so GPT is going to have so much information that any specific author barely has an effect on the output. OpenAI isn't stealing peoples art because they are not copying the artwork, they are using it to train models. imagine getting sued for looking at reference artwork before creating artwork.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless you provide for personhood to those statistical inference models the analogy falls flat.

We're talking about a corporation using copyrighted data to feed their database to create a product.

If you were ever in a copyright negotiation you'd see that everything is relevant: intended use, audience size, sample size, projected income, length of usage, mode of transmission, quality etc.

They've negotiated none of it and worst of all they commercialised it. I'd consider that being in real trouble.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not to mention, if we're going to judge them based on personhood, then companies need to be treating it like a person. They can't have it both ways. Either pay it a fair human wage for its work, or it isn't a person.

Frankly, the fact that the follow-up question would be "well what's it going to do with the money?" tells us it isn't a person.

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

Pay what a fair wage, the GPU farm? 😂