7 ms·

I can see a good argument in the complaint. The provenance of the training data leads back to it being acquired illegally. Illegally acquired materials were t

I can see a good argument in the complaint. The provenance of the training data leads back to it being acquired illegally. Illegally acquired materials were then used in a commercial venture. That the venture was an AI model is perhaps beside the point. You can’t use illegally acquired materials when doing business.

refulgentis 3y ago
It seems like a weak argument, in that it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it, from book reviews to sales listings to interviews.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Unless OpenAI can prove that the outputs are derived from legally vs illegally-obtained outputs, not sure that’s going to matter. And as far as I understand about their models, that’s effectively impossible.
  - kevinventullo 3y ago
    Isn’t the burden of proof on the other side?
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Not when OpenAI publicly declared they trained on pirated works. I can’t imagine “we can’t tell if this is the result of the illegal thing we did or not” is going to stand up very well, nor does it bode well for any refutation of the plaintiff’s depiction of their intent. Part of fair use consideration is commercial impact and when you steal a bunch of books to train your AI model, it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm.
      - pama 3y ago
        Please read more carefully. OpenAI never “declared they trained on pirated works.”
        refulgentis 3y ago
        +1
        yencabulator 3y ago
        However, the root of this thread quotes Meta admitting exactly that.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - kevinventullo 3y ago
        … it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm. So this is another thing I don’t understand. Is the claim that fewer people will buy Silverman’s book because ChatGPT is able to provide a summary? If so, call me skeptical.
        flangola7 3y ago
        That's not a claim Silverman has to make. "You copied my book without license to do so" is sufficient.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        Did they?
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Do you think scraping huge swathes of the internet contains pirated works or not?
        3y ago
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it Is this based on inside information, or just the law of averages? Doesn't the fact that they openly admitted to having been trained on pirated books affect your priors?
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    They didn't, more conjecture
    - Jolter 3y ago
      It seems to me that they are indeed admitting to using the pile/books3 dataset, which seems to contain Silverman’s book, at least. See post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 for a summary.
getmeinrn 3y ago
>You can’t use illegally acquired materials when doing business. This vague sentence conjures images of a company building products from stolen parts, but this situation seems different. IANAL, but if I looked at a stolen painting that nobody had ever seen, and sold handwritten descriptions of the painting to whoever wanted to buy one, I'm pretty sure what I've sold is not illegal.
- binarymax 3y ago
  Piracy of content is against the law. All other analogies such as looking at paintings are not at issue here. The content was pirated and there are laws against that, whether we agree with it or not. So, if the plaintiff can prove the content was pirated, then the use of that content downstream is tainted.
  - getmeinrn 3y ago
    >then the use of that content downstream is tainted What does that mean exactly? That's why I used the "looking at a stolen painting" example. Sure, pirating materials is illegal. But I don't think that's the big implication that people are getting at here. Is it legal to sell original works derived from perceiving stolen materials? Seems to me that it is.
    - patches11 3y ago
      In this case the correct analogy would be you brought a stolen painting into your house, looked at it for a while, and then produced your derivative work. Surely you see the issue here? Receiving stolen property?
      - getmeinrn 3y ago
        Yes, I acknowledged that piracy is illegal in my previous post. That's not what the lawsuit is about, according to The Verge: >In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights.

refulgentis 3y ago

It seems like a weak argument, in that it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it, from book reviews to sales listings to interviews.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Unless OpenAI can prove that the outputs are derived from legally vs illegally-obtained outputs, not sure that’s going to matter. And as far as I understand about their models, that’s effectively impossible.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  Isn’t the burden of proof on the other side?
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Not when OpenAI publicly declared they trained on pirated works. I can’t imagine “we can’t tell if this is the result of the illegal thing we did or not” is going to stand up very well, nor does it bode well for any refutation of the plaintiff’s depiction of their intent. Part of fair use consideration is commercial impact and when you steal a bunch of books to train your AI model, it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm.
    - pama 3y ago
      Please read more carefully. OpenAI never “declared they trained on pirated works.”
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        +1
      - yencabulator 3y ago
        However, the root of this thread quotes Meta admitting exactly that.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - kevinventullo 3y ago
      … it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm. So this is another thing I don’t understand. Is the claim that fewer people will buy Silverman’s book because ChatGPT is able to provide a summary? If so, call me skeptical.
      - flangola7 3y ago
        That's not a claim Silverman has to make. "You copied my book without license to do so" is sufficient.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Did they?
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Do you think scraping huge swathes of the internet contains pirated works or not?
        3y ago
pessimizer 3y ago
> it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it Is this based on inside information, or just the law of averages? Doesn't the fact that they openly admitted to having been trained on pirated books affect your priors?
- refulgentis 3y ago
  They didn't, more conjecture
  - Jolter 3y ago
    It seems to me that they are indeed admitting to using the pile/books3 dataset, which seems to contain Silverman’s book, at least. See post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 for a summary.

getmeinrn 3y ago

>You can’t use illegally acquired materials when doing business. This vague sentence conjures images of a company building products from stolen parts, but this situation seems different. IANAL, but if I looked at a stolen painting that nobody had ever seen, and sold handwritten descriptions of the painting to whoever wanted to buy one, I'm pretty sure what I've sold is not illegal.

binarymax 3y ago
Piracy of content is against the law. All other analogies such as looking at paintings are not at issue here. The content was pirated and there are laws against that, whether we agree with it or not. So, if the plaintiff can prove the content was pirated, then the use of that content downstream is tainted.
- getmeinrn 3y ago
  >then the use of that content downstream is tainted What does that mean exactly? That's why I used the "looking at a stolen painting" example. Sure, pirating materials is illegal. But I don't think that's the big implication that people are getting at here. Is it legal to sell original works derived from perceiving stolen materials? Seems to me that it is.
  - patches11 3y ago
    In this case the correct analogy would be you brought a stolen painting into your house, looked at it for a while, and then produced your derivative work. Surely you see the issue here? Receiving stolen property?
    - getmeinrn 3y ago
      Yes, I acknowledged that piracy is illegal in my previous post. That's not what the lawsuit is about, according to The Verge: >In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights.