4 ms·

> Can you point me to where OpenAI admitted they illegally acquired copies of works for training data? Yes. It's on the first page of the linked PDF: > For th

> Can you point me to where OpenAI admitted they illegally acquired copies of works for training data? Yes. It's on the first page of the linked PDF: > For this response, we draw on our experience in developing cutting-edge technical AI systems, including by the use of large, publicly available datasets that include copyrighted works. They then go on to try to claim this is just how everyone does it, as though that makes it okay, including making copies of the copyrighted works: > Modern AI systems require large amounts of data. For certain tasks, that data is derived from existing publicly accessible “corpora” (singular: “corpus”) of data that include copyrighted works. By analyzing large corpora (which necessarily involves first making copies of the data to be analyzed)... > at this point you’re being deliberately obtuse No, I just suspect we fundamentally disagree about the value and importance of many technologies.

dcow 3y ago
Well I never argued that under the current rules OpenAI shouldn’t have to acquire an initial legal copy of copyrighted works, just like libraries do. So we agree. If I were OpenAI I’d argue that a corpus built for the training of an AI model is transformative since it doesn't detract commercially from the original works. No one wanting wanting to train a model would otherwise be using that text to read the book instead.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  You are misunderstanding the purpose of transformation as a Fair Use criteria; it's there to prevent using copyright claims to quash parody and critical (as in criticism) discussion of the copyrighted work, so for instance using copyright to attack a journalist who quotes shitty writing in a book review, or a comedian who alters a quote to make fun of a Disney character, etc. Not only is training ml models not a form of critical expression that enjoys 1A protection, but using the book itself to train a model isn't transformative; you didn't alter the book, you used the book verbatim to train on. That the model doesn't maintain the book doesn't matter; copyright doesn't only cover output (ie a derived work like said comedy skit), it also covers input (how the original work is obtained), and in this case they were not obtained legally (which means with a license for said use). > I’d argue that a corpus built for the training of an AI model is transformative since it doesn't detract commercially from the original works The reason OpenAI isn't arguing this is because they know that would be DOA. You cannot just package copyrighted works together or in a different way and claim that is transformative; there is actually direct case law about that because torrenters tried to claim exactly that, and lost. In fact, transformation is explicitly ruled in several cases to not apply to the entire original work being present.

dcow 3y ago

Well I never argued that under the current rules OpenAI shouldn’t have to acquire an initial legal copy of copyrighted works, just like libraries do. So we agree. If I were OpenAI I’d argue that a corpus built for the training of an AI model is transformative since it doesn't detract commercially from the original works. No one wanting wanting to train a model would otherwise be using that text to read the book instead.

ang_cire 3y ago
You are misunderstanding the purpose of transformation as a Fair Use criteria; it's there to prevent using copyright claims to quash parody and critical (as in criticism) discussion of the copyrighted work, so for instance using copyright to attack a journalist who quotes shitty writing in a book review, or a comedian who alters a quote to make fun of a Disney character, etc. Not only is training ml models not a form of critical expression that enjoys 1A protection, but using the book itself to train a model isn't transformative; you didn't alter the book, you used the book verbatim to train on. That the model doesn't maintain the book doesn't matter; copyright doesn't only cover output (ie a derived work like said comedy skit), it also covers input (how the original work is obtained), and in this case they were not obtained legally (which means with a license for said use). > I’d argue that a corpus built for the training of an AI model is transformative since it doesn't detract commercially from the original works The reason OpenAI isn't arguing this is because they know that would be DOA. You cannot just package copyrighted works together or in a different way and claim that is transformative; there is actually direct case law about that because torrenters tried to claim exactly that, and lost. In fact, transformation is explicitly ruled in several cases to not apply to the entire original work being present.