7 ms·
Yeah and people read copyrighted books so they can get jobs and sell the use of the knowledge they acquired from reading the books. The only difference is a ma
by imgabe 3y ago
Yeah and people read copyrighted books so they can get jobs and sell the use of the knowledge they acquired from reading the books.
The only difference is a machine doing it at a larger scale.
- MegaDeKay 3y agoAnd (most) people buy those copyrighted books.
- imgabe 3y agoLibraries exist. Borrowing books from a friend exists. Even if you stole the book, using the knowledge you learned from it to make money is not copyright infringement. If you steal a book about how to make money flipping houses and then start flipping houses, at worst you are on the hook for a minor theft. The author can't sue you for illicitly learning to flip houses from the stolen book. That is just not how that works at all.
- data-ottawa 3y agoThe library is allowed to lend out books, they're not producing copies. I can lend you a book without producing a copy. I can steal a book without making a copy. I can learn from a book without making a copy. ChatGPT was trained by copying works into a dataset and using that for commercial purposes. Surely you can see how that's different.
- everly 3y agoThose people are entering into and abiding by a license agreement when they purchase the book.
- imgabe 3y agoNo they aren't. Where's the Terms of Service for a book? What about secondhand books or books you get from the library or books you borrow from a friend? I never had a book tell me to an accept a license agreement before I could read it.
- everly 3y agoAre you trolling? Look at the ISBN/info page of literally any book. It will say something like 'all rights reserved' and that you can't reproduce any part without permission, except for limited cases. Please go get a book off of your shelf and look, I'm begging you. Edit - Example from Infinite Jest: https://burnsiderarebooks.cdn.bibliopolis.com/pictures/140943064_6.jpg?auto=webp&v=1650224124 https://burnsiderarebooks.cdn.bibliopolis.com/pictures/14094...
- imgabe 3y agoUsing the knowledge from the book !== reproducing any part of the book. If I read a math book that shows me how to do an integral, then use that knowledge to do integrals, I'm not infringing the copyright of the book, ffs. If you read in a book that the main export of Germany is Bavarian creme doughnuts, and you use that knowledge in a job interview (i.e. making money) to land a job as a Bavarian creme doughnut importer, that is not copyright infringement. People learn things and put that knowledge to use, often for profit. What kind of insane interpretation of copyright law are you working with? A copyright notice is not an agreement. It's not a contract, it does not offer any consideration to the other party. There is no meeting of the minds. That is not at all how any of that works.
- everly 3y agoI am not saying that using knowledge is a copyright violation. Sorry but I think we're talking past each other. Inputting entire books verbatim into a model is not the same as a human learning a fact and using it later.
- imgabe 3y agoThe book does not exist verbatim within the model. You cannot open the model and find the full text of some copyrighted work anywhere. The model just trains a set of weights for a neural network, then probabilistically generates text in response to prompts. And yeah, humans "input entire books verbatim" (aka, reading) and then regurgitate that knowledge later when they determine it is likely to be an appropriate response to a question or comment from someone else. It's really not that different. It doesn't even have to be a fact. How many responses on the Internet are just quotes from movies or TV shows?