485
Report: Potential NYT lawsuit could force OpenAI to wipe ChatGPT and start over (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by 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

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

It's just a natural extension of the concept that entities have some kind of ownership of their creation and thus some say over how it's used. We already do this for humans and human-based organizations, so why would a program not need to follow the same rules?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because we don't already do this. In fact, the raw knowledge contained in a copyrighted work is explicitly not copyrighted and can be done with as people please. Only the specific expression of that knowledge can be copyrighted.

    An AI model doesn't contain the copyrighted works that went into training it. It only contains the concepts that were learned from it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    There’s no learning of concepts. That’s why models hallucinate so frequently. They don’t “know” anything, they’re doing a lot of math based on what they’ve seen before and essentially taking the best guess at what the next word is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Very much like humans do. Many people think that somehow their brain is special, but really, you're just neurons behaving as neurons do, which can be modeled mathematically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We can’t even map the entirety of the brain of a mouse due to the scale of how neurons work. Mapping a human brain 1:1 will eventually happen, and that’s likely going to coincide with when I’m convinced AI is capable of individual thought and actual intelligence

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Just saw this today. You should check it out, nitwit: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/15/scientists-reconstruct-pink-floyd-song-by-listening-to-peoples-brainwaves

    Edit: "nitwit" was uncalled for, but I do think you are an ignorant person.

    You aren't magical. You don't have a soul that talks to Jesus. You're a bunch of organized electrical signals—a machine. Because your machine is carbon-based doesn't make you special.

    Edit: Downvote all you want, but we're all still animals. Most people don't even believe that simple fact. Then again, most people don't even understand how their cellphone works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I fundamentally disagree and if that’s your take on humanity I’m scared for our future.

    There is a human element to us. I’m not spiritual at all. I believe when we die the lights just go out and we cease to exist. But there is undoubtedly a part of us that is still far from being replicated in a machine. I’m not saying it won’t happen, I’m saying we’re a long way from it and what we’re seeing out of current AI is nothing even close to resembling intelligence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So when it happens, you'll change your mind? My point is that what we have today is based on interactions in the human brain: neural networks. You can say, "They're just guessing the next word based on mathematical models", but isn't that exactly what you're doing?

    Point to the reason why what comes out of your mouth is any different. Is it because your network is bigger and more complicated? If that's the case GPT-4 is closer to being human than GPT-3 was, being a larger model.

    I just don't get your point at all.

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

    and if that is indeed the point: that the difference is simply size, then what does that law look like? surely it would need to specify a size of the relevant neural network that is able to derive works

    but that’s then just an arbitrary number because we just don’t know what it would be

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I don't even think that matters much, right? Current LLMs already out-compete humans at many tasks. I think we're already past the threshold, at least in some regards. That is to say, I don't think there is a hard line because it depends on what your testing criteria are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •