3 ms·

> it's a binary compressed representation of the works used to train it, for the purpose of on-demand production of works that mimicry, to a varying, and somet

> it's a binary compressed representation of the works used to train it, for the purpose of on-demand production of works that mimicry, to a varying, and sometimes strikingly infringing degree, the originals. To pursue this point further, I have asked ChatGPT to "list the lyrics of a famous Madonna song": Sure, here are the lyrics of "Like a Prayer" by Madonna, which was released in 1989: [Verse 1] Life is a mystery Everyone must stand alone I hear you call my name And it feels like home [Chorus] When you call my name It's like a little prayer I'm down on my knees I wanna take you there ... (the entire lyrics of the song follow) I think it would be very hard to argue that this model does not embed verbatim copies of the original work, but somehow reconstituted those lyrics via a parallel construction where the cultural impact of Madonna's lyrics were grasped from other fair use sources. Even in that case, it's still a word for word reproduction of the original, therefore not fair use. Therefore, the entire model or service is infringing - even if some of its productions may not be. The ability of the model to produce copyrighted works is just a proof of the degree on which it relies on the originals; even if that ability would be blocked or somehow filtered by a plagiarism detector in a later model of Chat GPT, it would change nothing to the fundamental nature of the machine: an automated means of generating derivative works without artistic or scientific agency.

shagie 4y ago
> it would change nothing to the fundamental nature of the machine: an automated means of generating derivative works without artistic or scientific agency. So is a Xerox machine (or Cannon copier or 'MFD') The issue there is not "if it can" or even "if it is designed to do so" but rather "can it be used in a way that is not infringing" and "if there is an infringement from its use, the human doing that is the one liable." And yet, there are non-infringing uses of the Xerox machine. Even if one was to accept the position that the only thing that GPT can produce is derivative works it doesn't rule out that there are transformative and non-infringing uses of it.
- cornholio 4y ago
  No xerox machine comes with an embedded copy of Harry Potter that can be reproduced at the push off a button. That's the crux of the issue, that you can't separate the training data from the derivation ability. If it's just an AI algorithm that could, when trained in a certain way, produce derivative infringing works, nobody would object to it.

shagie 4y ago

> it would change nothing to the fundamental nature of the machine: an automated means of generating derivative works without artistic or scientific agency. So is a Xerox machine (or Cannon copier or 'MFD') The issue there is not "if it can" or even "if it is designed to do so" but rather "can it be used in a way that is not infringing" and "if there is an infringement from its use, the human doing that is the one liable." And yet, there are non-infringing uses of the Xerox machine. Even if one was to accept the position that the only thing that GPT can produce is derivative works it doesn't rule out that there are transformative and non-infringing uses of it.

cornholio 4y ago
No xerox machine comes with an embedded copy of Harry Potter that can be reproduced at the push off a button. That's the crux of the issue, that you can't separate the training data from the derivation ability. If it's just an AI algorithm that could, when trained in a certain way, produce derivative infringing works, nobody would object to it.