71–80 of 599 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but that's useless without knowing how much (if any!) of it is actually correct. Is this completely hallucinated garbage?
This refutes the previous post’s claim that chatgpt-4 refuses to even try to provide a summary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but that's useless without knowing how much (if any!) of it is actually correct. Is this completely hallucinated garbage?
How is it different from asking to me to summarize anything? I could have bought the book, or read the Wikipedia page, or listened people talking about it, or downloaded the torrent. In all those cases my summary could be right or could be wrong. If the rights holders know that I dowloaded the torrent they could sue me. In the other cases they can't. What if it turns out that OpenAI bought a copy of every book ingest…
Well that's incredibly nihilistic. Whether the summary is correct or not matters a great deal! And if someone I knew said they read a book, even a very obscure one, and then summarized it to me, I'd have great confidence that they would get such simple facts as "who are the characters" and "what are the major plot points" correct.
But ChatGPT? Who the hell knows? You can't trust a thing it says, especially about obscure topics. The summary is useless if you have to do a bunch of verification to see if any of it is even true, a problem that summaries even by moderately competent human writers don't have!
Is my brain just by the act of existing continually infringes on copyright? Can I be sued because I made a reference to a movie I pirated or because I whistle a song I never bought?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless OpenAI can prove that the outputs are derived from legally vs illegally-obtained outputs, not sure that’s going to matter. And as far as I understand about their models, that’s effectively impossible.
Isn’t the burden of proof on the other side?
This doesn't seem like copyright infringement. I could read the book and offer a summary right? Someone on goodreads could as well. Why should an AI doing it be different? BTW I could also read someone's illicit copy and do the same, couldn't I?
I think people are trying to claim exclusive use rights that they simply don't have. I look forward to a lawyers opinion on this one.
I severely doubt that the spiders which crawled the data would go to the trouble of dereferencing and downloading torrents.
Earlier 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?
I buy a book and give it to my child, they read the book and later write and sell a story influenced by said book. should that be a copyright infringement? how about they become a therapist and sell access to knowledge from copyrighted books? should that be an infringement? what if they sell access to lectures they've given including facts from said book(s) to millions of people? it's understandable that people feel…
For now? I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes the next feature though.
Earlier 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?
I buy a book and give it to my child, they read the book and later write and sell a story influenced by said book. should that be a copyright infringement? how about they become a therapist and sell access to knowledge from copyrighted books? should that be an infringement? what if they sell access to lectures they've given including facts from said book(s) to millions of people? it's understandable that people feel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but that's useless without knowing how much (if any!) of it is actually correct. Is this completely hallucinated garbage?
How is it different from asking to me to summarize anything? I could have bought the book, or read the Wikipedia page, or listened people talking about it, or downloaded the torrent. In all those cases my summary could be right or could be wrong. If the rights holders know that I dowloaded the torrent they could sue me. In the other cases they can't. What if it turns out that OpenAI bought a copy of every book ingest…
A world where humans have special permissions but LLMs don't seems pretty interesting to consider, especially if they're both doing the same kind of things with the data.
>> In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights. This doesn't seem like copyright infringement. I could read the book and offer a summary right? Someone on goodreads could as well. Why should an AI doing it be different? BTW I could also read someone's illicit copy and do the same, couldn't I? I think people are trying to c…
But I really don't see how you could prove OpenAI did that, since ChatGPT could have learned from existing summaries on Wikipedia and Goodreads.