4 ms·

>1. is the use of copyright-protected works to train AI models fair use. >Answer: probably, we don't know for sure. It's worth remembering Wikipedia has every

>1. is the use of copyright-protected works to train AI models fair use. >Answer: probably, we don't know for sure. It's worth remembering Wikipedia has everything to gain by being allowed to handwave legalities away under "Fair Use". While their thoughts might be interesting to hear, we shouldn't forget they are strongly biased concerning the subject matter.

pxoe 4y ago
in their case, 'fair use' seems more fair - stuff like images, if it's a copyrighted work, are featured as a small resolution thumbnail. meanwhile, AI services (image generating ones) grab a high resolution copy off the internet (which could be a ding in itself, and also a ding for other "training data" collections which "only post links" (piratebay, anyone?), create a derivative (a model) off of that copy, and then create even more derivatives off of a model (which is an already legally questionable item in itself) in form of model output (which can be as high res as one wants). text based AI services also do some questionable sourcing of material, also create a derivative, a model, and then subsequent output. and the commercialization is more explicit, "this is a service/product/app, pay us for this product, pay us for compute, etc." all of these things steer AI services further and further away from "fair use". AI services truly do not have a strong foothold in trying to pass their stuff as "fair use", let alone trying to argue that their "use" is "fairer" than, say, wikipedia's.
crote 4y ago
Wikipedia also has something to gain by AI not falling under Fair Use. Wikipedia is most likely a substantial source of ChatGPT's training data. Considering Wikipedia primarily falls under the CC-BY-SA license, if it isn't fair use it could potentially make parts of ChatGPT - and potentially even its output - fall under CC-BY-SA too.

pxoe 4y ago

in their case, 'fair use' seems more fair - stuff like images, if it's a copyrighted work, are featured as a small resolution thumbnail. meanwhile, AI services (image generating ones) grab a high resolution copy off the internet (which could be a ding in itself, and also a ding for other "training data" collections which "only post links" (piratebay, anyone?), create a derivative (a model) off of that copy, and then create even more derivatives off of a model (which is an already legally questionable item in itself) in form of model output (which can be as high res as one wants). text based AI services also do some questionable sourcing of material, also create a derivative, a model, and then subsequent output. and the commercialization is more explicit, "this is a service/product/app, pay us for this product, pay us for compute, etc." all of these things steer AI services further and further away from "fair use". AI services truly do not have a strong foothold in trying to pass their stuff as "fair use", let alone trying to argue that their "use" is "fairer" than, say, wikipedia's.

crote 4y ago

Wikipedia also has something to gain by AI not falling under Fair Use. Wikipedia is most likely a substantial source of ChatGPT's training data. Considering Wikipedia primarily falls under the CC-BY-SA license, if it isn't fair use it could potentially make parts of ChatGPT - and potentially even its output - fall under CC-BY-SA too.