3 ms·

But GPT’s can restructure copyrighted text to make it different enough for it not to be direct theft. It won’t be long till you can get an entire book, feed it

by medion 4y ago

But GPT’s can restructure copyrighted text to make it different enough for it not to be direct theft. It won’t be long till you can get an entire book, feed it in and prompt it to regenerate the book in a different style. Then what happens? Or what about taking books out of copyright, then prompting regeneration in a different style with a slightly modified plot?

Dalewyn 4y ago
If you can prove there was a source and that source was used without appropriate licensing, that is a valid case of copyright infringement and possibly even IP theft. We really need to stop muddying the water surrounding "AI" and their use of source materials. Those so-called "AIs" are just software like any other program, they are tools like any other computer application, and the copyright and licensing legal precedences that apply to software apply to them. Obligatory IANAL.
- medion 4y ago
  Their ability to transform things (art, text, whatever) at incredible speeds, means chasing copyright is going to be a game of Whac-A-Mole. Also, what percentage of transformation of copyrighted works is still infringement? A GPT can ingest a 500 word piece of copyrighted text and either summarise it down to 50 words or triple the word count in a stylistically unique manner.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Obligatory IANAL. If you use any copyrighted source material without appropriate licensing (note: Fair Use is a form of licensing) in any way, that's copyright infringement. This is very simple and the legal world has demonstrated that fact time and time again long before computers ever came onto the scene. Some "AI" drawing a picture derived from copyrighted materials is no different from a game using copyrighted assets from another game. If there is no appropriate licensing, it's copyright infringement.

3 ms·

But GPT’s can restructure copyrighted text to make it different enough for it not to be direct theft. It won’t be long till you can get an entire book, feed it

by medion 4y ago

Dalewyn 4y ago
If you can prove there was a source and that source was used without appropriate licensing, that is a valid case of copyright infringement and possibly even IP theft. We really need to stop muddying the water surrounding "AI" and their use of source materials. Those so-called "AIs" are just software like any other program, they are tools like any other computer application, and the copyright and licensing legal precedences that apply to software apply to them. Obligatory IANAL.
- medion 4y ago
  Their ability to transform things (art, text, whatever) at incredible speeds, means chasing copyright is going to be a game of Whac-A-Mole. Also, what percentage of transformation of copyrighted works is still infringement? A GPT can ingest a 500 word piece of copyrighted text and either summarise it down to 50 words or triple the word count in a stylistically unique manner.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Obligatory IANAL. If you use any copyrighted source material without appropriate licensing (note: Fair Use is a form of licensing) in any way, that's copyright infringement. This is very simple and the legal world has demonstrated that fact time and time again long before computers ever came onto the scene. Some "AI" drawing a picture derived from copyrighted materials is no different from a game using copyrighted assets from another game. If there is no appropriate licensing, it's copyright infringement.