7 ms·
You're ignoring the point of what I'm saying though, which is that the required prompt is relevant to determining if ChatGPT itself is the thing violating the c
by DSMan195276 2y ago
You're ignoring the point of what I'm saying though, which is that the required prompt is relevant to determining if ChatGPT itself is the thing violating the copyright. I can probably get ChatGPT to produce any sequence of tokens I want given enough time, that doesn't mean ChatGPT is violating every copyright in existence, somewhere you have to draw the line.
- stonogo 2y agoThe difference between "I can probably generate everything" and "I can definitely produce this copyrighted work" is substantial and in fact the core argument in the case.
- DSMan195276 2y agoCan you really say it can "definitely produce this copyrighted work" if NYT had to try thousands of prompts, some of which included parts of the articles they wanted it to produce? That's my point. I really don't know the answer, but it's not as simple as "they asked it to to produce the article and it did", they tested thousands of combinations.
- freejazz 2y agoDid it? Then yes. You can say it "definitely produce this copyrighted work" I'm not sure how that could even be controversial. Either it does or doesn't. In this case, it does.
- DSMan195276 2y agoSo if I go on ChatGPT, copy in a chapter from a book and then ask it to repeat the chapter back to me, is ChatGPT violating the copyright of the book I just fed it?
- freejazz 2y agoThat's not an issue in this lawsuit
- delusional 2y agoI'm not ignoring it. I'm saying that the axis you're contemplating this problem on isn't correct. It's not about if you can get "any sequence of tokens" or the edit distance between those tokens and the actual tokens of the copyrighted work. The law is not (and should not be) an algorithm with a definite mathematical answer at some fixed point in a continuum. PI is not copyrighted, because that would be silly, but if you were to find the exact bytes in there to reproduce the next Marvel movie and you started sharing that offset, that would probably be copyright infringement. The fact that neither of those numbers were part of the original work, or copyrightable in isolation, or that "technically everything is present in pi", is immaterial. It's obvious to any non-pedantic human being that you're infringing on the creative work.
- DSMan195276 2y agoYou're still missing the key point. Say that website exists, if someone were to find the exact point in Pi that is the next marvel movie and started sharing the location, is the copyright violation committed by the creator of the Pi website or by the person who found and is sharing the location? If I give you a prompt that's just the contents of a NYT article and me telling ChatGPT to say it back to me, is ChatGPT committing the copyright violation by producing the article or am I by creating and sharing the prompt?
- freejazz 2y agoHow is that person missing the point? You are making a legal argument and apparently without any consideration for the actual law...
- DSMan195276 2y agoThey're missing my point because I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm saying that it's messy and things like the required prompt may sway the judge and/or jury one way or the other. If you provide ChatGPT an entire copyrighted text in the prompt and then go "ah-ha, the response violated my copyright", a judge and/or jury probably won't be very impressed with you. If instead you just ask ChatGPT "please produce chapter 1 of my latest book" and it does, then ChatGPT is not looking so great.
- freejazz 2y agoIf it is outputting verbatim copies of works it has ingested, it is doing copyright infringement. It's really not that difficult.