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.

  • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Google took samples from millions of different songs that were under copyright and created a website that allowed users to mix them together into new songs, they would be sued into oblivion before you could say “unauthorized reproduction.”

    You simply cannot compare one single person memorizing a book to corporations feeding literally millions of pieces of copyrighted material into a blender and acting like the resulting sausage is fine because “only a few rats fell into the vat, what’s the big deal”

        • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The analogy talks about mixing samples of music together to make new music, but that’s not what is happening in real life.

          The computers learn human language from the source material, but they are not referencing the source material when creating responses. They create new, original responses which do not appear in any of the source material.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Learn” is debatable in this usage. It is trained on data and the model creates a set of values that you can apply that produce an output similar to human speach. It’s just doing math though. It’s not like a human learns. It doesn’t care about context or meaning or anything else.

            • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay, but in the context of this conversation about copyright I don’t think the learning part is as important as the reproduction part.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Google crawls every link available on all websites to index and give to people. That’s a better example. Which is legal and up to the websites to protect their stuff

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a problem that it reads something. The problem is the thing that it produces should break copyright. Google search is not producing something, it reads everything to link you to that original copyrighted work. If it read it and then just spit out what’s read on its own, instead of sending you to the original creators, that wouldn’t be OK.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The blurb it puts out in the search results is much more directly “spitting out what’s read” than anything an LLM does. As are most other srts of results that appear on the front page of a google search.