|
|
|
|
|
|
by bamboozled
655 days ago
|
|
|
It's not about what the "author should get for their book". It's the OpenAI benefits unfairly from using everyone's work to make nearly endless money and lobby for regulatory capture. The author should get access to the model, the weights, it should all be open source because it partly contains their work. Just like how OpenAI could outright buy a copy of the authors work. Basically, I think this is where knowledge and money are coming into an unresolveable conflict, who owns the ideas ? who owns information? OpenAI seem to be trying to have a monopoly on information, and while they seem to be failing (thankfully), it's really where the issue lies for me. |
|
|
OpenAI competes with Google competes with a bunch of other companies, and surely this is only the beginning of a ton of competition as better and better models are developed. There's no "nearly endless money" when there's competition and GPU training costs a fortune.
The idea that all models should be open source to everyone or all content creators doesn't make any more sense than the idea that all the work I do should be open sourced to the authors of every book I've read, and every teacher I've ever had.
You ask two questions that have clear answers already:
> who owns the ideas?
Nobody. Legally speaking there's no such thing as ownership of ideas, except in the narrow case of patents (and if you consider trademarks to be ideas).
> who owns information?
You can copyright a particular, exact expression of information. The author of a book owns its text; the studio behind a movie owns the image in each frame.
But once you leave behind an exact expression of information, you're back in the realm of ideas, and there's no such thing as ownership of ideas. Which is why as long as ChatGPT and other models repeat ideas but not paragraphs of exact copyrighted wording, there's no legal issue. Because they're doing the same exact thing every human being does every day.