3 ms·
Please explain how this is any different than the Google Books case. Please do so without any feelings involved to the best of your ability. Even if OpenAI mal
by brianjking 3y ago
Please explain how this is any different than the Google Books case. Please do so without any feelings involved to the best of your ability.
Even if OpenAI maliciously ingested copywritten work, it is just a bunch of numbers and if you go in and ask for it spit the book back out, it won't. That simply isn't how this works.
- everly 3y agoI don't see much of a difference, seems like google profited off of copyrighted material that they didn't own. I dont understand the purpose of your feelings comment. I have no affiliations or preferences for any dogs in this fight. I don't necessarily think they are identical scenarios but if I were OpenAI's lawyer that's probably what I'd try and point at. I didnt say it would spit the book back out, at any point. I've said a human chose to copy the entirety of copyrighted texts, verbatim, into the training corpus for a language model that they intended to sell.
- brianjking 3y agoGoogle isn't selling any books, nor is it distributing the book. OpenAI isn't pirating any books content nor is it distributing or reproducing it. Nor are they even "stealing the book". Both are transformative content.
- everly 3y agoI don't agree that they aren't pirating content. If full text is used in the training corpus that seems like it would qualify. But I understand what you're saying and it's certainly possible you're correct, I just don't think it's obvious.