• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because it’s easy to get these chatbots to output direct copyrighted text…

    Even ones the company never paid for, not even just a subscription for a single human to view the articles they’re reproducing. Like, think of it as buying a movie, then burning a copy for anyone who asks.

    Which reproducing word for word for people who didn’t pay is still a whole nother issue. So this is more like torrenting a movie, then seeding it.

    • burliman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not that easy, don’t believe the articles being broadcasted every day. They are heavily cherry picked.

      Also, if someone is creating copyright works, it is on that person to be responsible if they release or sell it, not the tool they used. Just because the tool can be good (learns well and responds well when asked to make a clone of something) doesn’t mean it is the only thing it does or must do. It is following instructions, which were to make a thing. The one giving the instructions is the issue, and the intent of that person when they distribute is the issue.

      If I draw a perfect clone of Donald Duck in the privacy of my home after looking at hundreds of Donald Duck images online, there is nothing wrong with that. If I go on Etsy and start selling them without a license, they will come after ME. Not because I drew it, but because I am selling it and violating a copyright. They won’t go after the pencil or ink manufacturer. And they won’t go after Adobe if I drew it on a computer with Photoshop.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        If I draw a perfect clone of Donald Duck in the privacy of my home after looking at hundreds of Donald Duck images online, there is nothing wrong with that

        In your picture example it would be an exact copy…

        But even if you started a business and when people asked for a picture of Donald Duck, giving them a traced copy is still copyright infringement… Hell, even your bad analogy of a person’s own drawing, still copyright infringement

        The worst thing about these chatbots is the people who think it’s amazing don’t understand what it’s doing. If you understood it, it wouldn’t be impressive.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          You are missing his point. Is Disney going after the one who is selling the copy online, or are they going after Adobe?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            In that analogy, openai is the one selling it, because their the ones using it to prop up their product.

            I didn’t think I needed to explicitly state that, but well, here we are.

            Have a nice life tho. I’m over accounts that stop replying to one thread of replies and then just go and reply to one of my other comments asking me to explain what I’ve already told them.

            Waaaay easier to just never see replies from that account

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Some of us have to work for a living, I can’t reply to every comment the moment it comes in and it seems rude to break the chaine.

              In his analogy, openais product was the tool. You can do the same with both img gen and Photoshop, and neither of these prop up their product by implying it’s easy to copyright infringe. That’s why I said you were missing his point but you do you buddy.

              • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                That guy is total loss, a tragic clown as i am not sure if i should cry or laugh about them. I am not sure what businesses they had in this argument at all except pissing off people who are better informed.

                I’ve only just saw the comment where he seemed to suggest that the final trained model contains all trained materials in full… and that combined with not once but multiple times pretending they know all about llm’s that foss ai doesnt exist and we its we that all dont know how any of this tech works… i seriously have to restrain myself to leave that gross misconception as it is as i don’t want them to respond. I hope the down-votes do their job.

                I am sorry to vent, kinda just had to :)