4 ms·
This is apples to oranges. You don't need permission as a human, to read content if it's freely available. It was explicitly made for us to consume with an exp
by MattDaEskimo 3y ago
This is apples to oranges.
You don't need permission as a human, to read content if it's freely available. It was explicitly made for us to consume with an expectation of returning value. Mainly advertising.
Laws are (in theory) put in place to ensure a fair playing ground. If Company B requires content from Company A, but is causing financial damage to company A by using it, this is not fair use.
I'd also like to add the intentions. Even if we decide to quote the paper later in the day, I would say it's fair to assume 95% of readers do not intend to copy the content for profit.
OpenAI on the other hand is explicitly intending to copy the material to reuse into its own content in millions of generations for profit.
No metaphors needed.
- Arnt 3y agoCould you please explain (without metaphors!) why the publishers who publish 20-page summaries of books do so legally, while GPT's reuse into its content violates copyright?
- dangus 3y agoBecause those are summaries. The NYT found substantial portions of exact copies of their content being reproduced when you give ChatGPT the right prompts.
- MattDaEskimo 3y agoThis is still apples to oranges, but I'll bite. A summarized book can still entice a potential reader to purchase it. It's a form of advertising. Chewing up content and spinning it without any citations does not provide the original owners any form of publicity.
- vel0city 3y agoA 20-page summary of a book is a substantially different creation. They likely don't even have entire paragraphs reproduced, maybe only a few quotes. Those summaries also have deeper introspection on the overall work along with potentially critique about the work. It is a different creation even though related to another. Exactly reproducing most of an article is vastly different from a short summary. ChatGPT was exactly reproducing large amounts or entire articles. If ChatGPT was only writing short summaries of articles or critiques about them this case would be radically different. But in the end, ChatGPT is exactly reproducing copyrighted works.