4 ms·

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?
      • refulgentis 3y ago
        Does that mean "no"? I guess so. Where does it say they scraped huge swathes of the internet and didn't look at the results?