OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

  • voluble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nobody would defend copyright if it wasn’t already in place

    I don’t know about that. Say you take a few years to write a handful of poems, and it turns out people in your neighborhood really like them. You compile the poems into a book, and sell it for $5, and it sells well. Seeing this, your neighbor buys one, copies it, and starts selling it one neighborhood over for $2, and representing themself as the author. I would think most people in that situation would want to say, ‘hey, that’s not fair’. I don’t think that’s sick or rooted in greed, copyright can be a check on greed.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So thanks to copyright, we’re now living in a world where artists are fairly compensated and not exploited by large corporations acting as middlemen that have seized control of their creative works and used it for their own profit?

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        More so than we would be without copyright at all

        Copyright needs to be extended for individuals and cut back for corporations. People should be allowed to own rights to their ip, but corps should have much higher levels of restrictions and how some knowledge must be shared.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          More so than we would be without copyright at all

          It’s hard to imagine how it could be worse than what we have now.

          Copyright needs to be extended for individuals and cut back for corporations. People should be allowed to own rights to their ip, but corps should have much higher levels of restrictions and how some knowledge must be shared.

          Well in effect that would scale back the copyright nightmare we have now, but the basic problem is still there. The argument is still for near-indefinite monopoly privilege over information to be given to its creator at the expense of humanity’s ability to share and reproduce the work, I don’t think that’s justifiable.

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And I do. People are entitled to own their ideas. That’s a pillar I’m not willing to budge on.

            As long as art has value, then the ideas do too, and the artists should be compensated for it.

            Removing copyright would essentially mean the stopping of sharing everything because everyone is going to be hiding their secrets as close as possible so nobody can come and steal them and make money off them. There’d be no return on investment for any kind of research, no incentive for any artist to share their work and I firmly believe we’ll be significantly worse off without it.

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That sounds exactly backwards - letting people share information freely means there’ll be more sharing of information. The whole point is that we should have a model where information is freely available. At worst that entails a separation of verticals for “research” and “production”. A society can fund research as much as it feels like.

              Re: corporate secrets etc. - the same principle goes for legal agreements that bind employees from sharing them. How does it benefit humanity more for a corporation to be operating in secret, using secret chemicals or processes or whatever to create a good? That right off the bat sounds like a recipe for an environmental disaster, not even getting into the problems with discouraging the advancement of technology.

              Anyway, this is exactly what I meant with my original comment. Of course I’ve heard all these defenses before. It’s the same rehashed crap I’ve been hearing for decades to defend this broken institution. I said “nobody would be defending this if it wasn’t already the status quo”, precisely because that’s when people feel like any other way of doing it is impossible. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification

              “As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously” - Benjamin Franklin