41–50 of 769 posts
Aren't some of the examples basically asking for that content? Ask someone about two Italian brothers in a video game with a red and green hat that have M and L on them. What do you think you would get? If I describe "imagine a comic book duck that swims in a sea of gold in his vault" you would immediately think of Scrooge McDuck, no?
This for me does not make sense as a copyright violation. It’s like saying that Adobe is in trouble because you drew something infringing in Photoshop. If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.
When prompted with 'futuristic robot' and 'italian plumbers'.
So the argument is that if openAI had not used copyrighted and trademarked source material, this wouldn't be happening. It's not transformative as it's reproducing these copyrighted materials and trademarks verbatim.
That's how it makes sense.
> My guess is that none of this can easily be fixed. Systems like DALL-E and ChatGPT are essentially black boxes. GenAI systems don’t give attribution to source materials because at least as constituted now, they can’t. Is it necessary to fix in the model itself? It seems a gate in the post processing pipeline that checks for copyright infringement could work, provided they can create another model that identifies co…
This is such a nice, profitable opportunity. Much better than pay per view or subscription models for humans.
Aren't some of the examples basically asking for that content? Ask someone about two Italian brothers in a video game with a red and green hat that have M and L on them. What do you think you would get? If I describe "imagine a comic book duck that swims in a sea of gold in his vault" you would immediately think of Scrooge McDuck, no?
What I might think is irrelevant. It is the content that the LLM produces that is relevant.
Aren't some of the examples basically asking for that content? Ask someone about two Italian brothers in a video game with a red and green hat that have M and L on them. What do you think you would get? If I describe "imagine a comic book duck that swims in a sea of gold in his vault" you would immediately think of Scrooge McDuck, no?
The question is, how did the model create Mario&Luigi or Scrooge McDuck without training on copyrighted data? It can't just crawl Wikipedia because Fair Use in Wikipedia doesn't constitute Fair use for a commercial AI model.
One possible outcome is more transparency on what datasets were used to train the models.
One issue with that is that there is not a reliable way to determine if copyright is being infringed.
Even if models could be used responsibly, there might not be a reasonable expectation that most people will. If infringement is so easy and avoiding it relatively hard.
I'm not sure what legal prescriptions should be made on this basis, but it's an interesting thought.
Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
It’s one way of getting China to close the gap as they don’t care.
If I prompt "golden droid from classic sci-fi movie", what else am I asking for if not Star Wars?
Same with robot cop, what the hell did you expect to get…
Or Italian plumber with red hat with M on it, that’s just a description of Mario
Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
I can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.