11 ms·
> How is this materially different from training a GPT on those same pieces of code, and then asking it to construct a scheduler? I am saying sometimes GPT doe
by ncallaway 2y ago
> How is this materially different from training a GPT on those same pieces of code, and then asking it to construct a scheduler?
I am saying sometimes GPT doesn’t do the thing you’re describing. Sometimes it produces exact copies of something that it was trained on.
When it does that (not a “superficially similar” one, but an exact copy) can OpenAI be held liable for copyright infringement?
Because it seems like they want to avoid liability on both ends. They don’t want to be liable for copyright infringement based on ingesting works, and they don’t want to be liable when their tools produces a *copy* of existing works.
I don’t think that’s an acceptable framework.
- hurril 2y agoThing is: derivatives are verboten, sometimes. Otherwise we could all just steel and rename all the things.
- ncallaway 2y agoOkay, I think we may be arguing basically the same thing. I’m arguing that copying is not allowed. And you’re arguing derivative works are not always allowed. I originally thought you were arguing that derivative works are allowed, and that since copying was a derivative work, that copying was therefore also allowed. Sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were originally saying.