OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers • Hacker News Board

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#161

Post by nicbou » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 10:18 AM UTC

isoprophlex wrote: post #115

nicbou wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech industry’s understanding of consent is terrifying.

Mirrors that of a sexual predator. "Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow."

This is something I frequently point out to. If someone understood constent like tech companies do, they'd be banned from a few bars. Look up "rules for consent" and think about how consensual your relationship with tech companies is.

Here's one: https://stopsexualviolence.iu.edu/policies-terms/consent.htm...

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#162

Post by econ » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 11:13 AM UTC

JambalayaJimbo wrote: post #46

llm_trw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should any artist be able to tell another artist: hey don't copy my work when you're learning, I don't want competition? It seems like they are deeply upset someone has figured out a way for a machine to do what artists have been doing since time immemorial.

Llms are not humans and shouldn’t be anthropomorphized as a strategy to get around copyright infringement.

I've been uhh.. suffering(?) a different perspective. A company may hire a human to talk for it or its owner may talk for it.. the server rack and the software are things it can own. I don't think others are nesasarly any longer talking for it.

It is an absurd leap we've made but companies are also legal persons.

The companies are still of human design full of human behaviour and human characteristics while the LLMs actively try to imitate humans.

The dictionary saying: anthropomorphized: attribute human characteristics or behaviour to (a god, animal, or object).

If it passes the Turing test surely anthropomorphizing is fair game?

(I have no stake in this)

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#163

Post by devit » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:14 PM UTC

fenomas wrote: post #143

devit wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Model weights, if they can reproduce something like the original, are just a form of lossy compression (or even lossless for text), where the LLM answering the prompt is a more powerful version of asking software to retrieve a specific file from a Zip archive (or a webserver answering an HTTP query) of such lossy compressed data. So if model weights don't infringe, that would also imply that saving an image as a JPG…

That comparison would only make sense if compressed images were considered derivative works. They're not - copyright doesn't protect bytes on a disk, it protects creative expressions . Lossy compression doesn't affect the creative expression, so in copyright terms a compressed JPG is just a copy, and is covered exactly like the original image. In contrast a derivative work is one creative expression that contains ele…

Well then the model weights would be a compilation of copies of the original works, which has the same effect as it being a derivative work unless the copyright holder chose to allow copies but not derivative works.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#164

Post by DidYaWipe » Sat, Jan 18, 2025, 7:20 AM UTC

DidYaWipe wrote: post #153

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, who did they rip off? All their investors stand to profit handsomely (if they live).

Are you saying that donors to their "non-profit" received shares in the now-for-profit enterprise? And if so, do you have a citation for that?

No post body was provided.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#165

Post by simion314 » Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 9:25 AM UTC

Ukv wrote: post #131

simion314 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks. You need a better example, a textbook was created with this exact purpose of sharing knowledge with the reader. My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? If I get your painting, then use a script to apply a small filt…

> My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially s…

>I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning.

Agree. copyright is clear, so if I can make ChatGPT output copyrighted material then Open AI should pay me correct? Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI while a human would have had to pay damages.

Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

#166

Post by Ukv » Mon, Jan 20, 2025, 11:34 AM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #165

Ukv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially s…

>I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning.…

> so if I can make ChatGPT output copyrighted material then Open AI should pay me correct?

If by "make" you mean you're coaxing it into outputting your work, it'd be difficult to allege damages. If you show it's regurgitating your registered work to normal users, and it's not covered by fair use factors (e.g: it's outputting a significant portion of your work, in a non-transformative manner, and this is negatively impacting the market for that work), then you'd have a good case to bring.

> Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI

Rarity will affect damages, but they wouldn't be off the hook if such a situation does happen. To my knowledge no safe harbor applies here, given it's their own bot and not human users.