252
OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
245 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Apparently, stealing other people's work to create product for money is now "fair use" as according to OpenAI because they are "innovating" (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

"Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit "misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

"Soul" is the word we use for something we don't scientifically understand yet. Unless you did discover how human brains work, in that case I congratulate you on your Nobel prize.

You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong. And abstracting how the brain works to "it's a probability machine" definitely is a wrong description. Especially when you want to use it as an argument of similarity to other probability machines.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    "Soul" is the word we use for something we don't scientifically understand yet

    that’s far from definitive. another definition is

    A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death

    but since we aren’t arguing semantics, it doesn’t really matter exactly, other than the fact that it’s important to remember that just because you have an experience, belief, or view doesn’t make it the only truth

    of course i didn’t discover categorically how the human brain works in its entirety, however most scientists i’m sure would agree that the method by which the brain performs its functions is by neurons firing. if you disagree with that statement, the burden of proof is on you. the part we don’t understand is how it all connects up - the emergent behaviour. we understand the basics; that’s not in question, and you seem to be questioning it

    You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong

    it’s not abstracted; it’s simplified… if what you’re saying were true, then simplifying complex organisms down to a petri dish for research would be “abstracted” so much it “becomes wrong”, which is categorically untrue… it’s an incomplete picture, but that doesn’t make it either wrong or abstract

    *edit: sorry, it was another comment where i specifically said belief; the comment you replied to didn’t state that, however most of this still applies regardless

    i laid out an a leads to b leads to c and stated that it’s simply a belief, however it’s a belief that’s based in logic and simplified concepts. if you want to disagree that’s fine but don’t act like you have some “evidence” or “proof” to back up your claims… all we’re talking about here is belief, because we simply don’t know - neither you nor i

    and given that all of this is based on belief rather than proof, the only thing that matters is what we as individuals believe about the input and output data (because the bit in the middle has no definitive proof either way)

    if a human consumes media and writes something and it looks different, that’s not a violation

    if a machine consumes media and writes something and it looks different, you’re arguing that is a violation

    the only difference here is your belief that a human brain somehow has something “more” than a probabilistic model going on… but again, that’s far from certain

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent