11–20 of 21 posts
It claims that OpenAI output is "free", but the OpenAI ToS says (among other things) > You are prohibited from ... Using Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI. If this were a software license, it'd surely be classified as nonfree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> If the output you get matches pre existing content, the license these AI companies give you won't save you. Really? Isnt that the purpose of the indemnification agreement the vendors have underwritten?
We don't see it aggressively enforced in the US (unclear if that status quo will continue) but copyright infringement is also in the criminal code, and that can't be indemnified. Civil indemnification still means a sued party must go to court and assert it as a defense, and there's no guarantee that a judge won't throw it out as invalid. These are uncharted legal waters.
It claims that OpenAI output is "free", but the OpenAI ToS says (among other things) > You are prohibited from ... Using Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI. If this were a software license, it'd surely be classified as nonfree.
Thinking another layer deep, though, if someone used OpenAI tools to develop software that then later got used to compete with OpenAI, surely it would fully workaround this already unenforceable ToS restriction anyways, right?
Oh well.
Very interesting tool yet completely irrelevant for the United States as AI generated content is not eligible for copyright protection by anyone (pending appeal). As it stands y’all may not like this reality, but it’s quite clear in legal terms. Claiming an AI generated work is protected by copyright simply doesn’t matter regardless of which entity is asserting the right at present.
Very interesting tool yet completely irrelevant for the United States as AI generated content is not eligible for copyright protection by anyone (pending appeal). As it stands y’all may not like this reality, but it’s quite clear in legal terms. Claiming an AI generated work is protected by copyright simply doesn’t matter regardless of which entity is asserting the right at present.
I don't believe this is the case — in the situation that is commonly referenced to make this point, someone sought to have an AI legally declared to be the author of a specific work, and that was ruled not to be possible. But I am not aware of cases where people use prompts to generate artwork with AI and have found it impossible to copyright.
It claims that OpenAI output is "free", but the OpenAI ToS says (among other things) > You are prohibited from ... Using Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI. If this were a software license, it'd surely be classified as nonfree.
And as we can see from DeepSeek this clause means nothing, outside the realm of OpenAI blocking your access to its models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as we can see from DeepSeek this clause means nothing, outside the realm of OpenAI blocking your access to its models.
I know someone from OpenAI claimed this, but is there any evidence that DeepSeek actually trained their models on output of the models OpenAI have?
> “Specifically, we initialized the DeepSeek-Prover using the DeepSeekMath-Base 7B model (Shao et al., 2024). Initially, the model struggled to convert informal math problems into formal statements. To address this, we fine-tuned the DeepSeek-Prover model using the MMA dataset (Jiang et al., 2023), which comprises formal statements from Lean 4’s mathlib2 that were back-translated into natural language problem descriptions by GPT-4. We then instructed the model to translate these natural language problems into formal statements in Lean 4 using a structured approach.”
Section 3.1 in https://arxiv.org/html/2405.14333v1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know someone from OpenAI claimed this, but is there any evidence that DeepSeek actually trained their models on output of the models OpenAI have?
They talk about some examples in their research. > “Specifically, we initialized the DeepSeek-Prover using the DeepSeekMath-Base 7B model (Shao et al., 2024). Initially, the model struggled to convert informal math problems into formal statements. To address this, we fine-tuned the DeepSeek-Prover model using the MMA dataset (Jiang et al., 2023), which comprises formal statements from Lean 4’s mathlib2 that were back…
I guess I thought that If an image was generated by these tools, at least in the US, the copyright office did not consider it to have any copyright at all, therefore it was by default public domain?
* generated without any human interaction/prompting -> not copyrightable.
* with human input/prompting -> it depends.
see this comment in the thread and the child comment providing a link to a report by the US copyright office (read page 2 of the executive summary)