[munchler]

Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it.

Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.

[soared]

There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.

[Aeolun]

And it is. And you can sue them for that. What you can’t do is get upset they (or their AI) read it.

[munchler]

Sure, but that's a different claim and a different argument.

[amiantos]

I think to make that argument you would need evidence that someone prompted ChatGPT to reword/misquote info directly from your blog, at which point the argument would be that that person is rewording/misquoting info directly from your blog, not ChatGPT.

[Terr_]

I don't think so: The user is merely making a request for copyrighted material, which is not itself infringing, even if their request was extremely specific and their intent was obvious.

OpenAI would be the company actually committing the infringement and providing the copy in order to satisfy the request.

If the law suddenly worked the other way around, companies would no longer be able to prosecute people for hosting pirated content online, because the responsibility would lie with the users choosing to initiate the download.

[jillesvangurp]

That would fall under fair use.

Legally, you'd struggle to prove any form of infringement happened. Making a copy is fine. Distributing copies is what infringes. You'd need to prove that is happening.

That's why there aren't a lot of court cases from pissed off copyright holders with deep pockets demanding compensation.

[23B1]

> Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work.

It should. The 'free and open internet' is finished because nobody is going to want to subject their IP to rampant laundering that makes someone else rich.

Tragedy of the commons.

[munchler]

I can see this both ways. For the sake of argument, please explain why using IP to train an AI is evil, but using the same IP to train a human is good.

Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.

[simion314]

>Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.

You need a better example, a textbook was created with this exact purpose of sharing knowledge with the reader.

My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset?

If I get your painting, then use a script to apply a small filter to it then sell it as my own, is this legal? is my script "creative"?

This AIs are not really creative, they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used but in other cases it was shown ezactly the source that was used and just copy pasted in the answer.

[Ukv]

> My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset?

I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning.

> they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used

Even if you actually interpolated some set of inputs (which is not how diffusion models or transformers work), without substantial similarity to a protected work you're in the clear.

> is my script "creative"? [...] This AIs are not really creative [...]

There's no requirement for creativity - even traditional algorithms can make modifications such that the result lacks substantial similarity and thus is not copyright infringement, or is covered by fair use due to being transformative.

[simion314]

>I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning.

Agree. copyright is clear, so if I can make ChatGPT output copyrighted material then Open AI should pay me correct? Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI while a human would have had to pay damages.

[Ukv]

> so if I can make ChatGPT output copyrighted material then Open AI should pay me correct?

If by "make" you mean you're coaxing it into outputting your work, it'd be difficult to allege damages. If you show it's regurgitating your registered work to normal users, and it's not covered by fair use factors (e.g: it's outputting a significant portion of your work, in a non-transformative manner, and this is negatively impacting the market for that work), then you'd have a good case to bring.

> Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI

Rarity will affect damages, but they wouldn't be off the hook if such a situation does happen. To my knowledge no safe harbor applies here, given it's their own bot and not human users.

[Larrikin]

Is the AI allowed to decide unprompted how to spend the money? Can it decide that it doesn't like the people who made it and donate it to charity. Can the AI start it's own company and not hire anyone that made it? Can the AI decide that it prefers the open Internet and will answer all questions for free?

The sake of argument is a cowards way of expressing an unpopular opinion in public. Join a debate club if you're actually being genuine.

[23B1]

I never used the word evil.

That said, machines don't have natural rights, and you don't get to use them to violate mine.

[23B1]

scale

[amiantos]

Under this mentality, every search engine index would be shut down.

[23B1]

cool