5 ms·
Funny that when it is AI generated porn, it is non-consensual, but Copilot and ChatGPT aren’t labeled as producing non-consensual code and text, when they stole
by sumuyuda 3y ago
Funny that when it is AI generated porn, it is non-consensual, but Copilot and ChatGPT aren’t labeled as producing non-consensual code and text, when they stole the data in the same manner.
- kmeisthax 3y agoPeople are already complaining about that too and there are several pending lawsuits regarding the training data in the models.
- artninja1988 3y agoWhen you publish a work, you inherently grant permission for others to use it in various ways, including fair use and reuse
- rantallion 3y agoIt depends entirely on the license under which you published. Not everything is, or should be, fair game for corporations to exploit.
- artninja1988 3y agoHaving a license does not override fair use considerations
- ceejayoz 3y agoPeople often have an overly broad idea of what fair use protects, though.
- troad 3y ago> When you publish a work, you inherently grant permission for others to use it in various ways, including fair use and reuse This is conceptually backwards. In general, you have the right to do anything not constrained by law. Copyright is one such constraint, but fair use is carved out from copyright and specifically not included in copyright protection. Ergo, you don't need to do anything to have the right to fair use. This means that publication is irrelevant. Even if a work isn't published, and you just happen to find it under someone else's couch cushions, you have the right to make fair use of it. Of course, as goes without saying, fair use is quite limited, and the creator retains copyright and other rights (moral, etc.). (None of the above is legal advice.)
- paxys 3y agoThat doesn't make any sense. You have ownership over your face and likeness, hence stuff published in your name (or using your face) without your permission can be called "non consensual". This doesn't translate to the code you write. The most one can say is that they are violating your copyright, which is already heavily discussed every day in the context of generative AI.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> You have ownership over your face and likeness [...] > This doesn't translate to the code you write. The most one can say is that they are violating your copyright, [...] You are really trying to hairsplit that one intangible personal property right is “owned” and another is not?
- paxys 3y agoIt's not "hairsplitting". They are two entirely different branches of law.
- dragonwriter 3y agoThey are different branches of law, but neither is more tightly connected to the concept of “ownership” than the other. Saying that your likeness rights are something you have ownership over while things you own copyright to are not is a gross mischaracterization.
- kaycey2022 3y agoI don't buy the GP argument at all. But you have to take into consideration that most code is similar. All the code in a project when put together may be unique but snippets of code in one project - which is what presumably chatgpt is giving you - is not all that unique. Claiming ownership over that is somewhat meaningless.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoNothing is being stolen in either case. If you still have it then it’s not stealing.