11 ms·
> Computers are not humans. And? Why does that invalidate either of your two examples? You need to answer "why not GPT?" with something more substantial than "
by mdorazio 3y ago
> Computers are not humans.
And? Why does that invalidate either of your two examples? You need to answer "why not GPT?" with something more substantial than "because it's not a human."
- xbar 3y agoOh. This one is easy. ChatGPT a commercial software product that generates wealth for its owners, so allowing commercial products to steal and promote others' content on their own is an agreed-upon violation of rights. Let's look at an example: Google doesn't get to index and show New York Times content directly in its search results. If you think of ChatGPT more like Google maybe that will help you keep it straight.
- hhjinks 3y agoThat wouldn't be legal even if GPT was a person. It being software doesn't play into your argument at all.
- 93po 3y agoI'm a biological cog that generates wealth for my owners (i mean employers) and I use others' copyrighted content to learn how to do so
- mdorazio 3y agoOk. So GPT is a tool and therefore the legality is entirely tied to the use of its outputs. And we already have a large body of law around that for IP. I’m still not understanding your argument. And Re: Google. I agree. Which is why the case law around Google books showing full excerpts is important to look at.