▲ 485 ▼ Report: Potential NYT lawsuit could force OpenAI to wipe ChatGPT and start over (arstechnica.com) submitted 2 years ago by wanderingmagus@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world 157 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://nom.mom/post/121481 OpenAI could be fined up to $150,000 for each piece of infringing content.https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/report-potential-nyt-lawsuit-could-force-openai-to-wipe-chatgpt-and-start-over/#comments
[–] Vent@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) They didn't pay the writers though, that's the whole point permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] lily33@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children) True - but I don't think the goal here is to establish that AI companies must purchase 1 copy of each book they use. Rather, the point seems to be that they should need separate, special permission for AI training. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PupBiru@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago 100% this! there are separate licenses for personal listening, public performance, use in another work (movie and TV)… there will likely be a license added for AI training to which some authors will opt into, some will opt out of… it’ll likely start very expensive, nobody will pay, someone will offer up old works that aren’t selling well for bargain basement prices, make a killing, then others will see the success and slowly prices will follow and eventually prices will sit at a happy medium where AI companies can tolerate and copyright holders aren’t feeling screwed… well, i mean, they’ll be being screwed but their publishers will be making bank that’s my totally out of thin air prediction anyway permalink fedilink source parent [–] BURN@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I believe this is where it’ll inevitably go. However I’m not sure it’ll be just AI, rather hopefully more protections around individual creative work and how that can be used by corporations for internal or external data collection. This really does depend on privacy laws as well and probably data collection, retention and usage too. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is no law that requires them to be paid for this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alias@artemis.camp 0 points 2 years ago That probably depends a lot on definitions of terms of legalese, but there should be a law explicitly for this in every civilised country. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lily33@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children) True - but I don't think the goal here is to establish that AI companies must purchase 1 copy of each book they use. Rather, the point seems to be that they should need separate, special permission for AI training. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PupBiru@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago 100% this! there are separate licenses for personal listening, public performance, use in another work (movie and TV)… there will likely be a license added for AI training to which some authors will opt into, some will opt out of… it’ll likely start very expensive, nobody will pay, someone will offer up old works that aren’t selling well for bargain basement prices, make a killing, then others will see the success and slowly prices will follow and eventually prices will sit at a happy medium where AI companies can tolerate and copyright holders aren’t feeling screwed… well, i mean, they’ll be being screwed but their publishers will be making bank that’s my totally out of thin air prediction anyway permalink fedilink source parent [–] BURN@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I believe this is where it’ll inevitably go. However I’m not sure it’ll be just AI, rather hopefully more protections around individual creative work and how that can be used by corporations for internal or external data collection. This really does depend on privacy laws as well and probably data collection, retention and usage too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago 100% this! there are separate licenses for personal listening, public performance, use in another work (movie and TV)… there will likely be a license added for AI training to which some authors will opt into, some will opt out of… it’ll likely start very expensive, nobody will pay, someone will offer up old works that aren’t selling well for bargain basement prices, make a killing, then others will see the success and slowly prices will follow and eventually prices will sit at a happy medium where AI companies can tolerate and copyright holders aren’t feeling screwed… well, i mean, they’ll be being screwed but their publishers will be making bank that’s my totally out of thin air prediction anyway permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BURN@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I believe this is where it’ll inevitably go. However I’m not sure it’ll be just AI, rather hopefully more protections around individual creative work and how that can be used by corporations for internal or external data collection. This really does depend on privacy laws as well and probably data collection, retention and usage too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is no law that requires them to be paid for this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] alias@artemis.camp 0 points 2 years ago That probably depends a lot on definitions of terms of legalese, but there should be a law explicitly for this in every civilised country. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alias@artemis.camp 0 points 2 years ago That probably depends a lot on definitions of terms of legalese, but there should be a law explicitly for this in every civilised country. permalink fedilink source parent