4 ms·

ChatGPT is outright ripping straight from copyrighted works. https://www.404media.co/google-researchers-attack-convinces-chatgpt-to-reveal-its-training-data/ h

ChatGPT is outright ripping straight from copyrighted works. https://www.404media.co/google-researchers-attack-convinces-chatgpt-to-reveal-its-training-data/ https://www.404media.co/google-researchers-attack-convinces-...

ithkuil 3y ago
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment (I'm still trying to figure out myself what I think about all that): When I watch a painting in a gallery and after a few weeks I paint something inspired by what I saw, am I breaking the copyright law? If I sell such a painting, am I breaking the copyright law? I guess it also depends on how much the painting is similar. Is it an outright copy? Is it lure plagiarism? Is it just inspired by? Does it matter whether I paid the museum or bought the book where I saw the picture?
- rijoja 3y ago
  aha if I watch at your credit card for ten minutes, and then goes shopping on eBay using the information, and order stuff that I desire. If I sell what I bought on for profit, am I breaking the law? It depends on how much I'm willing to deceive myself. Is it outright theft? Is it pure luck? Is it divine intervention? The algorithm leaks 1:1 personal details of people, which means that they didn't care to sanitize the data, which is an obvious oversight, you're not really doing a great job of being the devils advocate if you ask me.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    > The algorithm leaks 1:1 personal details of people Which would usually require prompting about certain people or about certain bodies of personal information. What does this have to do with copyright? Claiming that a model as a whole infringes (infringes on which works?) is separate from claiming that a particular model output infringes on a particular work. Under current copyright law I think that the question of infringement doesn't apply to models. How do you compare an apple tree to a pear? Copyright is about actual similarity between new works and actual existing works first, method of creation (including theoretical reproduction of style, style not being an actual work) second. Pasting what I wrote in a different comment: My argument is that similarity of new works (including AI model outputs) to actual works (not to non-existing works, existing styles, or theoretical aggregations of multiple works) is a prerequisite to infringement. From an article about the substantial similarity test in the US [1]: > To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.[1][3] In order to get an infringing output, the user usually has to include a reference to an existing author or an existing work in the prompt. Sometimes that's not the case (which I've worried about with respect to Copilot), but in order to damn the model as a whole, you would have to establish that in over some percentage of cases the model produces infringing outputs for prompts which don't reference a particular author (whether individual or collective), a particular work, or a style strongly associated with a single or a few authors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity
- some_random 3y ago
  There is extensive case law to answer these questions, and I don't think they're the right questions to ask. The two big questions imo are "What does it mean that models can disgorge copyrighted material upon request?" and "Who owns material generated by a model?"
- wredue 3y ago
  No. But you’re a person, not a computer that has been specifically told to copy.
ls612 3y ago
So does Google search. There was a whole Supreme Court case about this which said Google showing small excerpts from books in the search results was fair use.

ithkuil 3y ago

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment (I'm still trying to figure out myself what I think about all that): When I watch a painting in a gallery and after a few weeks I paint something inspired by what I saw, am I breaking the copyright law? If I sell such a painting, am I breaking the copyright law? I guess it also depends on how much the painting is similar. Is it an outright copy? Is it lure plagiarism? Is it just inspired by? Does it matter whether I paid the museum or bought the book where I saw the picture?

rijoja 3y ago
aha if I watch at your credit card for ten minutes, and then goes shopping on eBay using the information, and order stuff that I desire. If I sell what I bought on for profit, am I breaking the law? It depends on how much I'm willing to deceive myself. Is it outright theft? Is it pure luck? Is it divine intervention? The algorithm leaks 1:1 personal details of people, which means that they didn't care to sanitize the data, which is an obvious oversight, you're not really doing a great job of being the devils advocate if you ask me.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > The algorithm leaks 1:1 personal details of people Which would usually require prompting about certain people or about certain bodies of personal information. What does this have to do with copyright? Claiming that a model as a whole infringes (infringes on which works?) is separate from claiming that a particular model output infringes on a particular work. Under current copyright law I think that the question of infringement doesn't apply to models. How do you compare an apple tree to a pear? Copyright is about actual similarity between new works and actual existing works first, method of creation (including theoretical reproduction of style, style not being an actual work) second. Pasting what I wrote in a different comment: My argument is that similarity of new works (including AI model outputs) to actual works (not to non-existing works, existing styles, or theoretical aggregations of multiple works) is a prerequisite to infringement. From an article about the substantial similarity test in the US [1]: > To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.[1][3] In order to get an infringing output, the user usually has to include a reference to an existing author or an existing work in the prompt. Sometimes that's not the case (which I've worried about with respect to Copilot), but in order to damn the model as a whole, you would have to establish that in over some percentage of cases the model produces infringing outputs for prompts which don't reference a particular author (whether individual or collective), a particular work, or a style strongly associated with a single or a few authors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity
some_random 3y ago
There is extensive case law to answer these questions, and I don't think they're the right questions to ask. The two big questions imo are "What does it mean that models can disgorge copyrighted material upon request?" and "Who owns material generated by a model?"
wredue 3y ago
No. But you’re a person, not a computer that has been specifically told to copy.

ls612 3y ago

So does Google search. There was a whole Supreme Court case about this which said Google showing small excerpts from books in the search results was fair use.