767
OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
313 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

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

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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent