3 ms·
That's a very strong claim that for which you should probably provide some evidence. I just asked ChatGPT to produce a script of a scene from a movie by asking
by cgriswald 3y ago
That's a very strong claim that for which you should probably provide some evidence.
I just asked ChatGPT to produce a script of a scene from a movie by asking it first to change a single line (which wouldn't be transformative) and then asking it to restore the line to the original. It obliged. Sure, it's probably not the same exact script, but it's not transformative at all.
In any case, the issue here isn't whether the output is transformative, but whether the work was used to train an LLM, which (perhaps) isn't an authorized or licensed use.
- px43 3y agoOkay, so you used a tool to duplicate a copyrighted work. You could do the same thing with a word processor. YOU are obviously the one who violated copyright by using the tool that way. I don't understand how a reasonable person could have a different interpretation.
- cgriswald 3y agoOP's claim requires the AI to produce work. If you're attributing the work the AI produced as my work, that's fine; but it means you believe the AI doesn't produce work at all; which would render the OP's claim not only false, but nonsensical.
- SantalBlush 3y ago>That's a very strong claim that for which you should probably provide some evidence. They said, "Period." That is worth more than evidence.