51–60 of 182 posts
So, the future is now! Now anyone lazy enough (to even not remove the phrase "As an AI language model I can't..." from the generated text) can "write books". And these "books" will be fundamentally plagiarism and a bunch of trivia by design. Isn't that wonderful? It certainly is wonderful!
This was an inevitable outcome of ChatGPT/LLMS, no? I expect to see a lot more of this by a lot of different people. I feel like a ton of the examples I’ve seen to date are effectively regurgitating Stack Overflow (sometimes verbatim!) and in a kind of abstract way, I feel like this is exactly the same as someone opportunistically publishing a bunch of auto-generated books… publishing a model trained on a bunch of we…
This is actually a spin on an existing git-rich-quick scam ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw ). Version 1.0 had people hiring low cost ghostwriters for hundreds of dollars to bang out a book on some SEO topic. Now you use the same playbook with "AI," with far less upfront cost.
So many questions: Are these books copyright by Tom Lesley, ChatGPT, OpenAI, ...? Should he share the money with OpenAI, or with the internet? Do we need to update the definitions of plagiarism? So it goes.
Technically, text written by ChatGPT can't be subject to copyright, even if said "Tom Lesley" tweaked them.
So many questions: Are these books copyright by Tom Lesley, ChatGPT, OpenAI, ...? Should he share the money with OpenAI, or with the internet? Do we need to update the definitions of plagiarism? So it goes.
There maybe some need to legally clarify how much input is necessary for Tom to claim copyright. ChatGPT can't, legally speaking only humans are capable of claiming copyright. In the monkey selfie case a few years ago it was determined animals and machines can't claim copyright. In cases where there is no human author, the work is public domain.
If I made a drawing with one of those old plastic spirograph tools I'd never wonder if the copyright was mine or the spirograph's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Copyright Office has decreed that AI generated content cannot be Copyrighted. If these books have a copyright listing then they are a violation of the rules. I doubt if the "author" is at risk for legal repurcussions, beyond not being able to sue for copyright violation.
I have yet to see a legal argument that says the output of ChatGPT is free from derivative works claims. So you can't assert ownership of the output, but that doesn't mean someone else can't assert rights on the grounds of derivative works. It is one of the reasons I don't see Copilot going anywhere. Any company that uses it can't assert ownership over their own IP, and if Copilot accidently reproduces a chunk of tra…
The copying verbatim thing is valid though, although they have mitigations against that
All the books have approximately the same number of reviews. Is Amazon completely uninterested in dealing with fake reviews?
More positive reviews = more sales. They are not just uninterested in dealing with fake reviews, their algorithms reward products with positive reviews regardless of their authenticity. Of course if you report it, they eventually deal with it, as long as it is required by some law.
Is it legal to publish books with content copied from chatgpt output? Is it possible to prove (in a legal sense) that this content comes from chatgpt?
The Copyright Office has decreed that AI generated content cannot be Copyrighted. If these books have a copyright listing then they are a violation of the rules. I doubt if the "author" is at risk for legal repurcussions, beyond not being able to sue for copyright violation.