More writers sue OpenAI for copyright infringement over AI training

Post by lokar » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

JamisonM wrote: post #20

guiambros wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming they used that data... That's the key part. You haven't yet proved they have actually used your content for anything (other than, potentially, read the license to decide if they should include or discard from their training set). But in practice we'll never know for sure if they are respecting the terms of licenses until 1) this is tested in court, or 2) there's some internal leak that points into either d…

I expect that OpenAI would concede that they used the data in any court case immediately to get that issue off the table, I really don't think they have a strong interest in foot-dragging on this stuff, right? I would think OpenAI wants the thornier legal issues actually settled so that the whole ecosystem can grow within those terms & they can lobby for the legal changes they need/want?

Post by ghaff » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

throwaway290 wrote: post #7

rmbyrro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all like piracy. When someone pirates a book, they're replacing the original without consent or remuneration to the copyright holders. When you train an AI on the contents of a book, you're not replacing it. If someone is interested in the content, they still need to buy it. Using ChatGPT is not a substitute. If it is, they're gonna have to prove it in court, but I doubt they'll be able to.

If you can ask ChatGPT about any book contents, you don't need to get the book, and if you don't need to get the book then author got robbed, ClosedAI/MS profited.

Post by anonymousab » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

mannyv wrote: post #22

All these lawsuits will die. Why? Because people train on corpuses of data all the time, without a license or any attribution. Every piece of text a writer reads is training that writer. Every image an artist sees helps to train that artist. Every sound a musician hears is training that musician. That doesn't mean they can't exclude their works from training via a license going foreward. But that becomes an enforceme…

Post by brookst » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 4:33 PM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #24

mannyv wrote: post #22

All these lawsuits will die. Why? Because people train on corpuses of data all the time, without a license or any attribution. Every piece of text a writer reads is training that writer. Every image an artist sees helps to train that artist. Every sound a musician hears is training that musician. That doesn't mean they can't exclude their works from training via a license going foreward. But that becomes an enforceme…

IIRC courts have already ruled AI-generated works cannot have copyright. So there is already a legal distinction between a human and a model creating works. I also doubt "humans are just a larger Markov chain than the LLM and they're allowed to" will hold up in court.

Post by plagiarist » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

probably_wrong wrote: post #6

Random thought: my blog is licensed under a Creative Commons license [1] that allows you to use and transform my content as long as you give attribution and distribute your contributions under the same terms. I found the OpenAI bot scraping my blog recently. Assuming they used that data, when will they attribute me? [1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/