Two authors sued OpenAI, accusing the company of violating copyright law. They say OpenAI used their work to train ChatGPT without their consent.

  • Meow.tar.gz@lemmy.goblackcat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Too be honest, I hope they win. While I my passion is technology, I am not a fan of artificial intelligence at all! Decision-making is best left up to the human being. I can see where AI has its place like in gaming or some other things but to mainstream it and use it to decide who’s resume is going to be viewed and/or who will be hired; hell no.

    • HumbertTetere@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      use it to decide who’s resume is going to be viewed and/or who will be hired

      Luckily that’s far removed from ChatGPT and entirely indepentent from the question whether copyrighted works may be used to train conversational AI Models or not.

    • Chailles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need AI to unfairly filter out résumés, they’ve been doing it already for years. Also the argument that a human would always make the best decision really doesn’t work that well. A human is biased and limited. They can only do so much and if you make someone go through a 100 résumés, you’re basically just throwing out all the applicants who happen to be in the middle of that pile as they are not as outstanding compared towards the first and last applicants in the eyes of the human mind.

      • Meow.tar.gz@lemmy.goblackcat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get that HR does this shit all of the time. But at least without AI, your resume or CV has a better chance of making it to a human being.

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not against artificial intelligence, it could be a very valuable tool, but that’s nowhere near a valid reason to break laws as OpenAI has done, that’s why I too hope authors win.

        • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Copyright, this is not the first time they’re sued for it apparently (violating copyright is a crime).

            • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Reusing the content you scraped, if copyright protected, is not.

              Edit: unless you get the authorization of the original authors but OpenAI didn’t even asked, that’s why it’s a crime.

                • LegendofDragoon@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That really will be the question at hand. Is the ai producing work that could be considered transformative, educational, or parody? The answer is of course yes, it is capable of doing all three of those things, but it’s also capable of being coaxed into reproducing things exactly.

                  I don’t know if current copyright laws are capable of dealing with the ai Renaissance.

              • bioemerl@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah it is. The only protection in copyright is called derivative works, and an AI is not a derivative of a book, No more than your brain is after you’ve read one.

                The only exception would be if you manage to overtrain and encode the contents of the book inside of the model file. That’s not what happened here because I’ll chat GPT output was a summary.

                The only valid claim here is the fact that the books were not supposed to be on the public internet and it’s likely that the way open AI the books in the first place was through some piracy website through scraping the web.

                At that point you just have to hold them liable for that act of piracy, not the fact that the model release was an act of copyright violation.