OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

  • treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you sample someone else’s music and turn around and try to sell it, without first asking permission from the original artist, that’s copyright infringement.

    So, if the same rules apply, as your post suggests, OpenAI is also infringing on copyright.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A sample is a fundamental part of a song’s output, not just its input. If LLMs are changing the input’s work to a high enough degree is it not protected as a transformative work?

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it’s more like a collage of everyone’s words. it doesn’t make anything creative because ot doesn’t have a body or life or real social inputs you could say. basically it’s just rearranging other people’s words.

        A song that’s nothing but samples. but so many samples it hides that fact. this is my view anyway.

        and only a handful of people are getting rich of the outputs.

        if we were in some kinda post capitalism economy or if we had UBI it wouldn’t bother me really. it’s not the artists ego I’m sticking up for, but their livelihood

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you sample someone else’s music and turn around and try to sell it, without first asking permission from the original artist, that’s copyright infringement.

      I think you completely and thoroughly do not understand what I’m saying or why I’m saying it. No where did I suggest that I do not understand modern copyright. I’m saying I’m questioning my belief in this extreme interpretation of copyright which is represented by exactly what you just parroted. That this interpretation is both functionally and materially unworkable, but also antithetical to a reasonable understanding of how ideas and communication work.