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 2 authors say OpenAI 'ingested' their books to train ChatGPT. Now they're suing, and a 'wave' of similar court cases may follow.

Two authors sued OpenAI, accusing the company of violating copyright law. They say OpenAI used their work to train ChatGPT without their consent.

ChatGPT @lemmy.ml

Spzi @lemm.ee

2y ago

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 /openai-copyright-lawsuit-authors-chatgpt-trained-on-books-2023-7

12 4

ChatGPT @lemmy.world

Spzi @lemm.ee

2y ago

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 /openai-copyright-lawsuit-authors-chatgpt-trained-on-books-2023-7

84 20

You're viewing a single thread.

115 comments

Too be honest, I hope they win. While I my passion is technology, I am not a fan of artificial intelligence at all! Decision-making is best left up to the human being. I can see where AI has its place like in gaming or some other things but to mainstream it and use it to decide who's resume is going to be viewed and/or who will be hired; hell no.
- use it to decide who’s resume is going to be viewed and/or who will be hired
  Luckily that's far removed from ChatGPT and entirely indepentent from the question whether copyrighted works may be used to train conversational AI Models or not.
- You don't need AI to unfairly filter out résumés, they've been doing it already for years. Also the argument that a human would always make the best decision really doesn't work that well. A human is biased and limited. They can only do so much and if you make someone go through a 100 résumés, you're basically just throwing out all the applicants who happen to be in the middle of that pile as they are not as outstanding compared towards the first and last applicants in the eyes of the human mind.
  
  I get that HR does this shit all of the time. But at least without AI, your resume or CV has a better chance of making it to a human being.
- I got a degree with a sub focus in AI and I hate where this has gone extremely fast. It’s not exciting anymore, it’s just depressing. I’m trying to get out of tech sooner rather than later and go live off the grid somewhere.
  AI will kill society long before it’ll save it
- I'm not against artificial intelligence, it could be a very valuable tool, but that's nowhere near a valid reason to break laws as OpenAI has done, that's why I too hope authors win.
  
  What laws are you saying they've broken?
  
  Copyright, this is not the first time they're sued for it apparently (violating copyright is a crime).
  
  Scraping the web is legal and training AI on data is also legal.
  
  Reusing the content you scraped, if copyright protected, is not.
  Edit: unless you get the authorization of the original authors but OpenAI didn't even asked, that's why it's a crime.
  
  Sounds like fair use to me.
  
  That really will be the question at hand. Is the ai producing work that could be considered transformative, educational, or parody? The answer is of course yes, it is capable of doing all three of those things, but it's also capable of being coaxed into reproducing things exactly.
  I don't know if current copyright laws are capable of dealing with the ai Renaissance.
  
  Yeah it is. The only protection in copyright is called derivative works, and an AI is not a derivative of a book, No more than your brain is after you've read one.
  The only exception would be if you manage to overtrain and encode the contents of the book inside of the model file. That's not what happened here because I'll chat GPT output was a summary.
  The only valid claim here is the fact that the books were not supposed to be on the public internet and it's likely that the way open AI the books in the first place was through some piracy website through scraping the web.
  At that point you just have to hold them liable for that act of piracy, not the fact that the model release was an act of copyright violation.

115 comments