|
|
|
|
|
|
by nonethewiser
1 day ago
|
|
|
Yeah, but my point is: what does that have to do with monopolies changing their services? And to continue your thought, what does that imply about copyright of training data? If Google is authoring the output it seems harder to argue they are ripping someone else off. It really seems like a tightrope to say google is publishing their own opinion but their opinion is also just someone else's work. |
|
|
Not much really other than it being a change of category from pure search surfacing other's speech to their crummy new chatbot input with search underneath. GP was just mistaken that this was in any way related to their quasi-monopolistic position.
> If Google is authoring the output it seems harder to argue they are ripping someone else off.
They still pirated a lot of the training material, it's not like they went and licensed copies of all the books they used in the inputs. Even discounting all the publicly available data on the internet and the models recreating things word for word a lot of the books etc they ingested are illegal copies.
> like a tightrope to say google is publishing their own opinion but their opinion is also just someone else's work.
It's a grey area for sure between remixing and blatant copying that changes depending on the precise output. But it's inarguable imo that they consumed and ingested the work of basically every digitized word humans have ever written for their own profit without an ounce of compensation for the original authors. Copyright is full of these grey lines though like fair use doctrine, it's incredibly difficult to define in a systematic way what distinguishes transformative and non transformative works for example.