4 ms·
Accessibility? I've heard of Silverman but never Ruby of Kishmoor More people discuss it, more people summarize on their personal or other sites, etc
by seanthemon 3y ago
Accessibility? I've heard of Silverman but never Ruby of Kishmoor
More people discuss it, more people summarize on their personal or other sites, etc
- buildbot 3y agoRight that is the point of the parent comment - it’s not the book, it’s the amalgamation of all the discussions and content about the book. This case is probably dead in the water.
- krisoft 3y ago> This case is probably dead in the water. Is that a fact? I’m no lawyer, but if they can get it in front of a jurry is it impossible that they will find a human author more relatable and the technical counter arguments goblydook?
- moffkalast 3y agoI'm not entirely up to speed on US law, but wouldn't OpenAI have to provide the court some kind of proof that they didn't use it in the training data during discovery?
- buildbot 3y agoNot a layer, but I believe the plaintiff (the author) would need to prove that it regurgitates their copyrighted work - otherwise it is possibly fair use. OpenAI does not need to prove anything, just defend their position at a reasonable level. It’s not been decided if training a model on copyrighted works is “okay” or not as far as I know, but I expect it to be so, given that literally everyone does so at this point. It’s not like imagenet is copyright free, many of the images were/are.
- pkilgore 3y agoNo. Fair use is an affirmative defense to infringement. If they admit to infringement or in the alternative want to argue fair use, the burden is on OpenAI to demonstrate their use falls within the relevant standard for fair use.
- pkilgore 3y agoNo. Burden is on the plaintiff (Silverman) to prove infringement.