Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
21–30 of 599 posts
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#22Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#23She'd have to sue every student that writes an essay on a book they'd read
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#24Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#25Isn’t it much more likely that there are a lot of book reviews and summaries in its training set from which it can synthesize its own?
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#26Isn’t it much more likely that there are a lot of book reviews and summaries in its training set from which it can synthesize its own?
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm allowed to make private copies of copywritten works. I'm not allowed to redistribute them. To what extent this is redistribution is not clear. Is there much of difference between this model and a machine, like a VCR, that recreates the original work when I press a button?
This would be like you intensely studying the copy written work and then writing things based on the knowledge you obtained from that. Except, we don't know if their is an exception for things learned by people vs. things learned by machines, or if the machines are not really learning but copying instead (or if learning is intrinsically a form of copying?).
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#28Isn’t it much more likely that there are a lot of book reviews and summaries in its training set from which it can synthesize its own?
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#29Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#30This is actually quite interesting, as it's drawing a distinction between training material that can be accessed by anybody with a web browser (like anybody's blog), vs. training material that was "illegally-acquired... available in bulk via torrent systems." I don't think there's any reason why this would be a relevant legal distinction in terms of distributing an LLM -- blog authors weren't giving consent either. H…
I'm allowed to make private copies of copywritten works. I'm not allowed to redistribute them. To what extent this is redistribution is not clear. Is there much of difference between this model and a machine, like a VCR, that recreates the original work when I press a button?