,comments,date,author,upvotes,sentiment 0,"This whole thing is just going to be the Napster story all over again. First one to market gets sued into oblivion, but then replicas pop up faster and faster and it's like playing whack-a-mole until content creators and their legal teams have to just give up.",2023-07-10 16:41:50,nails_for_breakfast,463,NEGATIVE 1,"I think the lawsuit is about the illegal access of the AI to their book, not that it read their book. Meaning that the AI owner did not buy the book and fed it to the AI, but the AI gained access to the book via some ""shadow libraries"" that hold illegal copies of those books. But being able to show a summary of the book, they claim that the AI read the book (without paying for it), and those created the summary. This is a difference from review sites for example, where the author would either buy or gifted the book from the publishers, and then read it, and give a review/summary of the book. So it was obtained legally. If AI makers can defend it by claiming that their AI did not read the book, but it is actually saw the free online summary and was reciting it back, than they might circulate the copyright claim. Or if they show that their AI does not access illegal libraries (and proving that it did will require a lot from the authors' lawyers) but is reading parts of summaries that are publicly available to anyone, than they might get a pass on this. Another defense could be, that if the company shows that the authors' lawyers do not make any steps to prevent or sue or try to block illegal access to their books and just ""accept it"", than they by doing nothing, allow the free and public availability of the book, and in doing so, the AI company is not liable for the public access of the book.",2023-07-10 12:11:22,Defoler,744,NEGATIVE 2,"Does copyright law as it exists forbid one from using a copyrighted work as training material without permission? AFAIK, it doesn't even forbid you from summarizing a novel in a review (even quoting some passages) and selling it to a magazine. Copyright law is supposed to protect a creator's ability to profit from their work, but the usage of Silverman's work as training material won't directly lead to loss of income on her part, unless she asserts that in the future people would rather read AI-generated simulations of her work rather than the real deal. It seems to be rather hasty of her to try to take on two tech giants at the same time on such sketchy premises. Doesn't it have a risk of hurting other creator's future legal efforts in the same direction?",2023-07-10 10:48:38,MaxChaplin,218,NEGATIVE 3,"This is one of those times where it's painfully obvious that nobody read anything but the title. Her lawsuit alleges that the AIs were trained on books acquired through a torrent from a pirate source and that her book is available in it's entirely, without copyright information, in accessible datasets. I wouldn't be surprised personally. There's no way a company paid to train an AI on everything and paid for it cause the cost would be astronomical. They need to find a better solution than straight up piracy but it currently doesn't exist so I can't really blame them since it's definitely an ""ask forgiveness"" situation.",2023-07-10 19:50:28,keith2600,34,NEGATIVE 4,"These cases are pretty silly and will lose under the precedent of *Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.*[1]. OpenAI has a much stronger position than Google did, and Google won. The use by OpenAI is *far* more transformative than by Google Books. If there are examples of the AI regurgitating back to users the text it was fed, then those narrow cases will result in liability to OpenAI, but I think that is something OpenAI should be able to prevent. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.",2023-07-10 22:11:46,hottake_toothache,7,NEGATIVE 5,"Maybe it has changed, but when I tried with chat gpt to summarize books it was usually a big failure... except if it's a classic like Harry Potter for example. But even Kafka on the shores which is a very well known book it was unable to tell what happened in most of the book. So when she says that the IA can access the integral content of the book I'm a bit skeptical, either there are a lot of sources about her books and their summary or in some way the whole book was posted in a part of internet that chat gpt can access",2023-07-10 14:16:14,Hyperion542,32,NEGATIVE 6,"The question is whether or not it was fair use. This will be a more difficult case for Silverman, but it is a case that needs to happen because this type 'learning' will increase with time.",2023-07-10 17:57:30,Tobacco_Bhaji,6,NEGATIVE 7,"""Information wants to be free."" -- Stewart Brand, 1984",2023-07-10 15:16:38,humbuckermudgeon,19,NEGATIVE 8,"The use of literary works in training language models has a decent chance of being considered fair use. The use is transformative and has no impact on the market for the original work. In fact it is so transformative that an author would have difficulty proving which, if any, of their works had been used in training. If you removed a specific author's works and re-trained the model, you would be hard pressed to tell which version of the model had the author's works and which did not. By being able to imitate a specific author's style, a language model may have impact on the market for an author's *future* works, but that's irrelevant to copyright law. Works that do not exist are not protected by copyright. For this argument to previl, an author's style would need to be ruled copyrightable, which would be a major shift in copyright law. In my opinion, which is that of a layman who has had an interest in intellectual property law for most of his life, copyright law simply doesn't cover this situation. It wasn't meant to. Authors might be better served by tort here. If they can prove their current or future income is affected by GPT, they may have a case for damages. OTOH Silverman's lawyers have surely advised her of the risks and she still decided she had a good enough case to proceed. However it turns out, it'll be good to have the matter tested and settled.",2023-07-10 14:23:01,kindall,11,NEGATIVE 9,"I mean eventually someone was going to program a robot to talk about vaginas, what does she expect?",2023-07-11 00:07:29,ScribblesandPuke,3,NEGATIVE 10,"Wouldn't they have to prove that the AI didn't use other available information from the internet, like summaries posted on Wikipedia and similar? It seems like the lawsuit is based on assumptions that are reasonable but will be difficult to prove.",2023-07-11 00:13:39,Dull-Lengthiness5175,3,NEGATIVE 11,Napster vibes,2023-07-10 13:50:12,jajunior0,6,NEGATIVE 12,"> In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights. So…summarizing a book is illegal now? Shutdown all the review sites…including this one.",2023-07-10 10:15:24,AevnNoram,129,NEGATIVE 13,"This will go well beyond books. If AI uses copyright photos or artwork as a basis to create a photo or artwork it could be strongly argued that it is violating that copyright, as shown in the recent Supreme Court ruling over derivative works regarding the Andy Warhol Prince painting. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/supreme-court-prince-andy-warhol/index.html",2023-07-10 21:31:13,spepple22,2,POSITIVE 14,"Oh my god, how could they do this? Anyway, let’s replace doctors with AI since they are more better",2023-07-10 22:19:18,jerrystuffhouse,2,NEGATIVE 15,"I always love the comments in articles about AI art because you get dudes who have never created AI nor art trying to explain both. The absolutely moronic take of ""humans are just machines that recreate other art"" is so telling that these people have never touched art and just think it's a product. Then you have the false idea that these AI have the capability of interpretation, which is required to create art. AI cant interpret (yet, possibly ever) but they dont know that.",2023-07-10 10:37:05,T3chn0Punk,28,NEGATIVE 16,"Godspeed to these authors. I think this is an important case. “AI” models are impressive and useful, but they aren’t creating anything, they can’t, they don’t have actual intelligence. Hopefully this lawsuit will at least make that more to clear to people.",2023-07-10 09:54:44,bosskbot,43,NEGATIVE 17,"I wonder if you can ask someone who read the book to give you a summary, would that be copyright infringement or just free speech? Does it get complicated if an AI does it for free just like a friend would? I think the issues arises if you do it for money.",2023-07-10 14:47:30,chadmuffin,5,NEGATIVE 18,It’s insanely evident that people have no idea what AI actually is.,2023-07-10 16:10:41,ReallyGottaTakeAPiss,4,NEGATIVE 19,"I'm not familiar with the details of how AI training models work but I keep seeing statements along the lines of ""how can they prove it"" and that makes zero sense. If the defendant has the evidence then in all likelihood they'll be compelled to produce it during discovery. It's not a murder case, nobody is going to perjure themselves to protect the interests of openAI.",2023-07-10 18:16:30,friendoffuture,5,NEGATIVE 20,"The AI read Ms. Silverman's book and published a review of it. Which is what any number of human reviewers have done or will do. It seems dubious to claim the AI violated copyright law, while the human reviewers did not.",2023-07-11 04:59:19,GilMc,2,NEGATIVE 21,"Although I'm very excited about this new technology as it will be a incredibly powerful tool which can potentially improve our lives, this conflict shows how we increasingly struggle to adapt to new tech. Right now I see no compromise which will satisfy both sides and it challenges our fundamental concepts of intellectual property and creativity. To express it pessimisticly: tech is overtaking us and as much as it boosted our species development, we can't possibly keep up with it. A hard stop might be needed but this won't be happening. Might as well tag along and enjoy the ride?",2023-07-10 10:33:07,Yohansel,6,NEGATIVE 22,"If these legal cars win it would be a complete overturning of copyright law. They want to claim that having merely read or accessed a document is a copyright violation. There goes the entire Internet. Are we all in violation for having read the article? Is the fact that I can give the summary of a book evidence that I have copied it? ChatGPT doesn't have a copy of the text it's learned from. It doesn't have a giant database it searches. The closest they could do is claim that they illegally accessed the materials, but that is entirely different and since they don't have any idea on how they accessed the material it would be a hard case to prove. The only other route would be deciding that LLMs are some new category of thing that are inherently illegal. That would be legislating from the bench which is unconstitutional.",2023-07-10 10:42:11,SgathTriallair,12,NEGATIVE 23,"I think one of the biggest issues with a lawsuit like this, as well as AI art generators, is fair use. A person can copy someone's artistic style. They can practice how they make the eyes, the hair, the hands, use similar colors.... and then make a unique piece of art, using that style, and its completely legitimate. A child in school will write a book report, summarizing the content of a novel they just read... yet they are not sued for copyright infringment. The big difference between a person doing it, and AI doing it, is mostly a matter of speed. But should speed really factor into fair use?",2023-07-10 16:38:38,Halfwise2,3,NEGATIVE 24,"Yeah this is just going to go nowhere honestly all these people are pissed that your IP was stolen but they themselves still borrowed and copied from other people's work. I think the most big thing is that people are realizing that they're creative work isn't all that creative and watching something spit out in 5 seconds which took them 5 years to put together well maybe not as good it's 90% there.",2023-07-10 14:09:09,sigmatrophic,3,NEGATIVE 25,As an artist and a wannabe author I've never been so excited for a lawsuit in my life!,2023-07-10 10:07:14,Vegan_Harvest,-4,NEGATIVE 26,ChatGPT plagiarized a paper I wrote for grad school about medical gaslighting. I was kind of flattered. It used every single one of my talking points in the same order.,2023-07-10 23:39:29,thisbikeisatardis,2,NEGATIVE 27,Do authors not get influenced by what they have read? how is this fundamentally different?,2023-07-10 14:15:25,EDNivek,3,NEGATIVE 28,The sloppy way they built the AI data set deserves all the law suits.,2023-07-10 15:36:06,vxv96c,1,NEGATIVE 29,"How so, has chat GPT started to talk about their puss and making unfunny remarks about their sex life?",2023-07-10 12:09:59,Joseluki,1,NEGATIVE 30,"Frivolous case. They cannot demonstrate copyright infringement at any stage, though what they allege certainly happened. There are too many ways for ChatGPT to gain its information without literally reading those works, and ChatGPT's creators can simply feign ignorance of the details.",2023-07-10 11:36:34,xugan97,-3,NEGATIVE 31,Like SHE hasn't stolen a joke before...,2023-07-10 11:31:12,NanditoPapa,-2,NEGATIVE 32,Good! Get em!,2023-07-10 18:08:03,Kai-ni,1,POSITIVE 33,Now this is just a way for Silverman to advertise the fact that she's written some shitty book.,2023-07-10 19:50:27,horrorcruiser,1,NEGATIVE 34,"> In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights. How is providing a summery of a book a copyright infringement?",2023-07-10 23:02:52,cycophuk,1,NEGATIVE 35,"IMO AI should be allowed to be used for medical and engineering purposes on non profit basis AI should not be allowed for creative for profit purposes This approach ensures AI advances in technology will benefit humanity while not unfairly profiting off the work of people who did not consent",2023-07-11 01:27:25,Disastrous_Ball2542,1,POSITIVE 36,I can’t see how AI breaches copyright. The work is not duplicated. Maybe we need different laws.,2023-07-10 10:24:05,elonsbattery,-3,NEGATIVE 37,"Man oh man, do I forsee some lawsuits. Attorneys all over the world have dollar signs in their eyes right now.",2023-07-10 13:51:44,AcidBathVampire,1,NEGATIVE 38,"Yeah, good luck with that book summaries are abundant and easily accessible. There's one on the publisher's website.",2023-07-10 16:23:44,MrBoo843,1,POSITIVE 39,What's her standing? She has to demonstrate actual harm that the courts can remedy. How has she specifically been harmed?,2023-07-10 19:55:14,Nulovka,1,NEGATIVE 40,Good luck with that.,2023-07-10 20:53:44,Cash907,1,POSITIVE 41,I hope she wins. chatgpt is theft from humanity,2023-07-11 03:14:30,thinkpadius,1,NEGATIVE 42,Old man yells at cloud,2023-07-10 12:26:58,KennKennyKenKen,-3,NEGATIVE 43,Laws are always behind the times. It doesn’t help that our legislators is almost exclusively comprised of the most tech illiterate age group.,2023-07-10 12:58:34,FranklynTheTanklyn,0,NEGATIVE 44,"Good for her and good for all the plaintiffs that will ultimately sue any of the companies developing AI who do so without constraint and permission. Don't steal. Information, in any format, whether it's a full volume of work, an article from a journal, a monographic series, audio recording or video recording, etc., used to train any of the AI without permission is theft of copyright .",2023-07-10 15:28:28,jonnysunshine,0,POSITIVE 45,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 19:54:08,,0,POSITIVE 46,I miss when she was actually funny.,2023-07-10 12:22:24,Kills_Alone,-8,NEGATIVE 47,"Sounds like a massive waste of time and money. She won't be able to show that it didn't use other summaries of her books to generate a summary when prompted, and won't be able to show damages. And even if the datasets are the problem, then they should be suing the creators of those datasets.",2023-07-10 14:38:28,Autarch_Kade,0,NEGATIVE 48,"Fun times. Imagine AI being legally shut down in Western nations. The single most useful thing I've encountered since the internet itself. Congratulations, other countries where hopeless legal decisions don't stand in the way of adopting the latest and greatest.",2023-07-10 12:02:34,Fredasa,-7,POSITIVE 49,"When life gives you lemons, just say fuck the lemons and bail.",2023-07-10 16:30:09,Zealousideal-Air3803,0,NEGATIVE 50,"I'm not going to take the time required to form an opinion about this case but this is only the beginning of AI related lawsuits. In 10 years, the courts will be swamped with cases including everything from copyright infringement to malpractice.",2023-07-10 12:52:01,jarchack,-2,NEGATIVE 51,"Good. Hope they win. It seems likely Open AI have rinsed all kinds of copyrighted material and are making money from it, and they haven’t revealed a list of sources for data sets. Not sure of the exact legal arguments, but this is typical of big tech bullshit where they exploit the work of others for their own gain, move fast break things, and hope no one notices, and usually get away with it.",2023-07-10 16:18:29,,-1,NEGATIVE 52,"She wrote a book? ""CHATGPT WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF IRRELEVANT?""",2023-07-10 16:29:23,soggyblotter,-2,NEGATIVE 53,"Don't many public libraries provide access to ebooks now? Not to mention what's stopping them from just borrowing it from a library to claim the right to ""read"" it?",2023-07-10 16:50:57,msnmck,-3,POSITIVE 54,[entfernt],2023-07-10 23:27:39,,-2,POSITIVE 55,Fuck copyright law,2023-07-10 12:57:14,,-5,NEGATIVE 56,These celebrities need to lighten up,2023-07-10 10:07:27,FUThead2016,-31,NEGATIVE 57,Maybe she should look at the bright side? Someone finally read her book!,2023-07-10 18:49:59,Fatius-Catius,-2,POSITIVE 58,"Wait, is ChatGPT now singing songs about fucking Matt Damon too?!?",2023-07-11 01:38:03,DaxItUp,0,NEGATIVE 59,"I think she’s hoping people will realize she actually wrote a book, and maybe some will want to read it.",2023-07-11 08:54:38,NintenJoo,0,NEGATIVE 60,"What's the difference between asking ChatGPT for information that is found in the book and asking a friend, who read the book, the same question? Let's say that question was asked on a Podcast where thousands of people hear the answer?",2023-07-10 15:37:33,SittingByTheFirePit,-2,NEGATIVE 61,"What damages can you expect to be awarded if someone reads a copy of your book they didn't pay for? The price of one book?",2023-07-10 15:48:55,trimorphic,-3,NEGATIVE 62,"These people should be happy books are made available to the masses. If your sole purpose for writing a book was to get paid instead of having more people read your book anyway possible, I do not want to read it anyway.",2023-07-11 03:45:24,NaiiaN6,-3,NEGATIVE 63,These lawsuits are all. So. Fucking. Stupid.,2023-07-10 17:27:40,thisimpetus,-6,NEGATIVE 64,she's so unpleasant,2023-07-10 17:37:59,susbnyc2023,-5,NEGATIVE 65,Moneygrab!,2023-07-10 19:22:57,tw_f,-4,NEGATIVE 66,Wow huge mistake. She is so dumb.,2023-07-11 00:46:07,,-5,NEGATIVE 67,Did chatGPT develop a pee fetish?,2023-07-10 10:13:50,d4m4s74,-21,NEGATIVE 68,"Any reason to not write ""Microsoft"" in the title?",2023-07-10 15:36:51,Zeioth,-1,NEGATIVE 69,"Me: Do a stand up bit in the style of Sarah Silverman. ChatGPT: [Note: Sarah Silverman is known for her edgy and provocative style of comedy. While I'll try to capture her essence, please be aware that humor can be subjective and may not resonate with everyone.] Ladies and gentlemen, how's everybody doing tonight? I mean, besides the existential dread that's always just simmering beneath the surface. Am I right? It's like, ""Hey, life, why don't you chill out for a second?"" But no, life's like, ""Nah, let's keep throwing curveballs. You're getting too comfortable, Sarah."" You know, I was thinking the other day about how crazy it is that we have smartphones now. I mean, we have all the world's knowledge in our pockets, and what do we do with it? We watch videos of cats doing stupid things! I mean, if ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato saw what we're doing with their legacy, they'd be like, ""Really, guys? This is what we fought for?!"" And don't get me started on social media. It's like the breeding ground for self-doubt and envy. You know, I was scrolling through Instagram the other day, and I saw this woman who had the perfect life—beautiful house, amazing job, perfect family. I was like, ""Who is this bitch and why is she ruining my self-esteem?"" I mean, how do you compete with someone who filters their life better than an Instagram influencer filters their face? Dating is another wild ride, isn't it? We're living in a time when swiping left or right determines your romantic destiny. It's like ordering takeout, except instead of sweet and sour pork, you're picking between ""emotionally unavailable"" and ""ghosted after two dates."" The choices are overwhelming! But you know what really baffles me? The fact that we still have daylight saving time. I mean, who came up with this? It's like they said, ""Hey, let's take an hour away from everyone's sleep and mess up their circadian rhythm."" Like, what kind of sadistic person does that? If I ever meet the person who invented daylight saving time, I'm gonna shake their hand... at 2 a.m. when they're just about to fall asleep! Look, life is weird and unpredictable, but that's what makes it interesting. We're all just trying to navigate this crazy world one day at a time, laughing through the absurdity, and hoping we don't accidentally stumble into an alternate dimension where clowns rule the Earth. Or maybe that wouldn't be so bad. I mean, it's not like politicians could do much worse, am I right? Thank you, goodnight! Remember, life is strange, so embrace the weirdness and keep laughing, even when it feels like the world's gone mad.",2023-07-11 03:14:10,abedetroit,-1,NEGATIVE 70,Good luck. You put shit out in public and now so one found a way to find it faster,2023-07-11 03:34:02,taylorpilot,-1,POSITIVE 71,More reason to promote AI. Someone draws a circle and AI draws it better and every person who has ever drawn a circle sues the people who created that AI to make the perfect circle.,2023-07-11 06:45:06,BeebleBoxn,-1,NEGATIVE 72,"Doesn’t make any sense. If a friend gives me a book and then I read it, It is still very much legal lol.",2023-07-10 16:27:17,Donbrands,-4,NEGATIVE 73,The training data will be better without her drivel in any case.,2023-07-10 17:24:46,Dehuser,-5,NEGATIVE 74,Ugh lawsuits slowing progress for a quick cash grab,2023-07-10 19:23:22,Break-The-Ice-318,-5,NEGATIVE 75,Dunno who this tramp is but she can gtfo. AI is here to stay,2023-07-10 22:32:16,respectedwarlock,-4,POSITIVE 76,This woman is gross,2023-07-11 03:43:06,wxk9673,-2,NEGATIVE 77,"She reminds me of Gary Larson, the creator of the Farside Comics. These people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet. Also reeks of huge entitlement. IIRC Tim Heidecker is similar in that he loses it at people who torrent or stream. Celebrities are so wrapped in their own personal bubbles. They should be embarrassed to scrounge against stuff like this. Real Abe Simpson yelling at clouds vibe.",2023-07-10 14:43:07,razkachar,-3,NEGATIVE 78,Let’s go CharGPT!!!!,2023-07-10 21:14:23,Mrhavoc24,-3,POSITIVE 79,I'm pretty sure the ai could come up with a summary just by being fed other people summaries. So it seems easy to win this one for chatgpt,2023-07-10 18:40:01,Chrononi,-5,NEGATIVE 80,Pfffft….. OZAY,2023-07-10 18:43:23,dukakis92,-4,NEGATIVE 81,"The copyright laws do not apply to hardware or software, otherwise the creator of any digitized copyright materials could sue all manufacturers and developers. Sorry Sarah Silverman, you have to love it first.... Then prove it has effectively comprehend the material enough to be infringement. If it was scraped from a public dataset there she has no chance as the DMCA does exactly this.",2023-07-10 14:06:25,cjd166,-5,NEGATIVE 82,AI can't infringe copyright as anything it produces isn't a copyrightable work. Only human produced content is copyrightable.,2023-07-10 20:21:51,kolloth,-7,NEGATIVE 83,"""More Input ahhhhh! More Input!""",2023-07-10 16:15:01,Doterboatz,1,POSITIVE 84,"for the last time sarah, you do not own the word ""doody""",2023-07-10 21:10:39,Wthq4hq4hqrhqe,1,NEGATIVE 85,Most book synopses are on Wikipedia (very detailed synopses). This chat bots have access to Wikipedia data. That's the answer.,2023-07-11 01:04:09,SnooPineapples1133,1,POSITIVE 86,I'm sure the AI can defend itself in the court of law /s,2023-07-11 08:14:52,sdsmith1988,1,POSITIVE 87,"I seriously doubt this crosses any actual IP infringement laws, though. Napster was distributing literal copies of the work. Machine learning is more like.. hiring a band to listen to and copy the music. People should try to fight against this, probably. If they're self interested. It's definitely an existential crisis for human art expression. I just don't think there's a way to regulate it without unplugging everything.",2023-07-10 20:09:44,IShowerinSunglasses,165,NEGATIVE 88,"Yeah, I don’t think OpenAI and Meta are going to get sued into oblivion.",2023-07-10 18:13:03,ald_loop,2,NEGATIVE 89,"To me, ChatGPT is like a collage. You can take existing art and form it into something new, same with music mashups etc. There's no way to control everything now.",2023-07-10 23:07:34,chevymonza,2,NEGATIVE 90,"Nah there's no way you're even going to win much in damages, you're going to win the market rate for scanning the book plus legal fees plus the $75,000 or whatever. It's not going to be enough to destroy these billion dollar juggernauts. All they have to do is open up a subsidiary in Japan where they are explicitly allowed to violate copyright to train AI",2023-07-12 02:41:33,override367,2,NEGATIVE 91,"I don’t understand this comment.. Napster, Kazaa etc were super user friendly and gave everything for free There is nothing like that now. You either get user friendly + cheap, or not as user friendly + free.",2023-07-10 20:43:49,dabadeedee,4,NEGATIVE 92,Yeah this is definitely true here. I really hope they weather the storm because ChatGPT has been amazing with helping me on data cleaning and extraction. I don't think I could accomplish the same tasks with GitHubs copilot yet.,2023-07-10 17:55:32,Arrowkill,-1,POSITIVE 93,"The difference here is legal versions are being made from licensed content. Compare midjourney to say photoshop or Getty images, who are later to the party but have huge libraries of legal licensed content to machine learn from. It's possible that we end up again with a boring monopoly as we always do.",2023-07-11 01:34:08,PenguinJoker,1,NEGATIVE 94,"That's not how copyright works. Public availability isn't the same as unfettered right to use. E.g., you can't just go to the library, copy a book, and start selling. The fair use exception that would apply to reviews and summaries has not been tested with generative AI ingestion.",2023-07-10 15:04:27,TheMostAnon,235,NEGATIVE 95,"I think you mean circumvent, not circulate",2023-07-10 15:36:53,Dospunk,9,NEGATIVE 96,I think it will be very difficult to prove that the AI did not just find a few summaries to ingest.,2023-07-10 13:52:47,Lallo-the-Long,196,NEGATIVE 97,Circumvent*,2023-07-10 15:14:56,Dr-Lipschitz,12,NEGATIVE 98,"That's interesting, but what would be the material damages? The sale of one book? If so, what's the end game of the lawsuit? Piracy fines are almost always for re-distribution of copies AFAIK and ChatGPT isn't doing that. Edit: Possibly for a court to shut down the practice across the board while governments get their head around how to handle this sort of thing.",2023-07-10 13:53:56,ChunkyLaFunga,32,NEGATIVE 99,"This raises a really interesting question. So with torrenting a person is downloading a bunch of different parts of a file from a bunch of people but it's all 'hosted' in the same place. That's illegal. In this case lets say 200 different forums and articles all have a two paragraph excerpt from the book that together make up the entirety of the book. It wouldn't be illegal for a human to read every review and article and in doing so read the whole book. To a human obviously it's not worth it. But to an AI it now has access to the entire book. What's interesting is asking what part of torrenting and file sharing is actually illegal. If it's legal to have 200 articles spread out on different sites that all make up the entirety of a book that someone could read....then is the illegal part just that all those individual parts are able to be accessed together? In that circumstance would it be illegal for me to create a website that has 200 links that direct you to all the different articles that would allow you to read the entire book? At that point i've essentially created a manual version of torrenting.",2023-07-10 20:55:10,LethalMindNinja,2,NEGATIVE 100,"That last one, that's not how copyright works. It's trademark you have to defend. You can tolerate copyright infringement all you want then decide that one particular instance is not okay and sue. This actually happens all the time, like with copyright owners ignoring most fan fiction, except for the one trying to monetize it.",2023-07-10 15:57:43,TheLurkingMenace,4,NEGATIVE 101,https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than,2023-07-10 14:42:57,greenie4242,5,NEGATIVE 102,"Shadow library lol? If you look up any book name followed by PDF I promise you’ll fine the whole thing on the first page of google Edit: Somebody help me understand the downvotes lol. This is very much a well known thing. My grade schools would even have us get books like this cuz the school never bought enough",2023-07-10 20:48:29,AnonymousPussyNommer,-1,POSITIVE 103,I kinda hope they just program chatGPT to pretend Sarah Silverman doesn’t exist,2023-07-10 18:02:05,Apart-Rent5817,-3,NEGATIVE 104,Yhey could just ask ai some small part of the story that isnt relevant enough to be in any summary and prove it it did get access to the book,2023-07-10 15:51:39,ReallyNotATrollAtAll,1,NEGATIVE 105,"I feel like all this could be cleared up pretty fast by having a ai cut up Disney movies and sell them, or having it sell sampled copyright music.",2023-07-10 16:02:35,TheReforgedSoul,1,NEGATIVE 106,Seems like a lot of hassle. They should have just bought a copy of her book. It's only $20,2023-07-10 17:27:06,Spider_pig448,1,NEGATIVE 107,Couldn’t they claim the book got access to the book through a normal library?,2023-07-10 18:40:31,LupusDeusMagnus,1,NEGATIVE 108,">Meaning that the AI owner did not buy the book and fed it to the AI, but the AI gained access to the book via some ""shadow libraries"" that hold illegal copies of those books. I'm not sure if you can use the books commercially just by buying a copy.",2023-07-10 20:03:28,re_carn,1,NEGATIVE 109,"What about a libraries though They just rented the book.",2023-07-10 21:10:56,Mintfriction,1,POSITIVE 110,"I don’t know about her book specifically, but I’ve asked GPT to recite specific parts of books and it has.",2023-07-10 22:02:55,Cracktory,1,POSITIVE 111,"I do appreciate that it's someone as rich as sarah silverman bringing the case, so it can be fully seen that it's just about raw, grasping greed and a desire for even more wealth, rather than any kind of moral or principled stance. She already has enough money for 10 lifetimes, but why not get a little more by suing the ChatGPT guys?",2023-07-11 03:07:03,dethb0y,1,NEGATIVE 112,">But being able to show a summary of the book, they claim that the AI read the book (without paying for it), and those created the summary. This isn’t how these AI programs work though. It generates the summary based on all other summaries that were written. The AI doesn’t do any analysis of content it is fed.",2023-07-11 03:58:29,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 113,What? That's not how it works. Things found online does not mean you can freely use it with any license.,2023-07-11 04:18:13,,1,NEGATIVE 114,Who are they?,2023-07-11 05:14:43,zirtik,1,NEGATIVE 115,"She could probably argue that you could profit by selling the right to use the text as training material for AI. I would argue that that should be the default case that you should have to pay for what you're using to train the AI unless the material is free, open source/ public domain, and the license allows for profit.",2023-07-10 11:31:45,TheReforgedSoul,196,NEGATIVE 116,"> Does copyright law as it exists forbid one from using a copyrighted work as training material without permission? No, at least not unless a court is really going to ignore both spirit and letter of copyright law. But see factual allegations 25: What they claim is that OpenAI obtained a copy of their works illegitimately. This, if true, would be a standard copyright infringement.",2023-07-10 14:13:00,GlitchSurfer,35,NEGATIVE 117,">Copyright law is supposed to protect a creator's ability to profit from their work, but the usage of Silverman's work as training material won't directly lead to loss of income on her part, unless she asserts that in the future people would rather read AI-generated simulations of her work rather than the real deal. The article stated ChatGPT was able to reproduce summaries of the actual works so I can see how that could negatively impact their sales if only marginally. >The claim says the chatbot never bothered to “reproduce any of the copyright management information Plaintiffs included with their published works.” This seems more important though, I'm sure they won't mind ChatGPT being able to reproduce summaries if it includes a link to buy their work/copyright information",2023-07-10 11:57:52,njuffstrunk,24,NEGATIVE 118,"> won't directly lead to loss of income on her part If antipiracy rulings will affect this then it's not about actual damages but the potential.",2023-07-10 13:05:37,double-you,7,NEGATIVE 119,"They would have had to pirate these books in bulk to train ChapGPT on it, which is itself copyright infringement. A single act of piracy would be insignificant, but not so for the piracy of tens of thousands of top commercial works.",2023-07-10 11:40:47,xugan97,10,NEGATIVE 120,"> Does copyright law as it exists forbid one from using a copyrighted work as training material without permission? Laws lag behind tech by some significant measure. In this case, the real issue is that they broke copyright law to *acquire* the book. They took it from a pirate site. What they did after breaking the law doesn't appear to be the main point of the case.",2023-07-10 16:59:44,dank_the_enforcer,2,NEGATIVE 121,"It’s intended to prevent others from using your work for their OWN direct profit. A review written by someone is that person’s actual work. Using someone’s work to create a machine to produce pseudo-copies of that work is NOT a review or a summary. It could be construed as a copy and should be tested. As a design professional whose ideas and imaging eaten by AI then randomly altered and spit out for profit, I should get a paid when my work is used for someone else’s profit.",2023-07-10 13:43:00,2ndEmpireBaroque,7,NEGATIVE 122,"> Does copyright law as it exists forbid one from using a copyrighted work as training material without permission? It really comes down to ""no one knows."" On one hand we can say that no explicit law exists that covers this particular case and that's one answer to your question. But on the other hand there are lots of laws and precedents that cover what constitutes a derivative work and what constitutes fair use etc. All we can do is wait for cases like this one to be brought forth so we can see what way the judges rule and what new precedents are created, but it's so open currently that we should also expect any decisions to be appealed and counter appealed up to the highest courts. Personally I'll be very interested to see how the courts of different states react.",2023-07-10 13:16:33,GrowthDream,3,NEGATIVE 123,"AFAIK in Japan they created laws directly stating that using copyrighted material for training data does not breach copyright. I think similar laws will need to be brought out in different countries to stop lawsuits like this.",2023-07-10 12:16:12,hitsujiTMO,-1,NEGATIVE 124,"A lot of people are working on the misconception that AI is just a big stored database of information which is being searched. Neural networks are something which desperately need some better teaching material, because they're beautifully simple once somebody gives a nice clean example, and it can be obvious that they're not storing data but are instead learning the lessons because there simply isn't space to store the information. At it's simplest you could use machine learning to train a neural network to convert Miles to Kilometres, just by finetuning the multiplier between them. The final multiplier doesn't store whatever example values you used to calibrate it, and can be used for far more than just those examples, because the underlying lesson was learned, it wasn't the case of the data being saved. Anybody is free to observe, measure, learn from, etc, other's material, that's not what copyright protects against.",2023-07-10 12:26:34,AnOnlineHandle,-8,NEGATIVE 125,Her lawyers will say it will damage her brand,2023-07-10 13:41:39,ohdearitsrichardiii,1,NEGATIVE 126,"There is no laws against this. I think I remember Will Wight in an AA when someone brought up that someone was selling summaries of his books on amazon and he said he wasn't happy about it but he couldn't legally do anything about it.",2023-07-10 14:16:58,Falsus,0,NEGATIVE 127,"Exactly this - fair use laws DO exist that stipulate freedom of use when someone is doing something transformative with the original content - These are literally Generative Pre-trained TRANSFORMERS -",2023-07-10 12:44:15,canadianmatt,-14,NEGATIVE 128,"Copyright law absolutely SHOULD protect work from being used as training material for AI, this is just a case of technology moving faster than the law. If I make a photo edit of two photos without permission to use them, I am violating copyright law whether I make a profit on that edit or not. The same is true for AI. If it edits together 100s of photos (which is essentially what it does) the creator of the AI needs permission to use those photos whether he's profiting off the result or not. End of. Same with books, articles, summaries etc. The people who wrote those things have copyright on them.",2023-07-10 18:11:35,Kai-ni,1,NEGATIVE 129,"There's a fine line between creating a derivative work (e.g. a Reader's Digest condensed book) and summarizing for purposes of review. Usually fair use criteria such as the purpose of the use, the amount of use, and the substitutability of the derivative work for the original come into play. Some uses are settled matters (e.g. condensed books are definitely derivative works and require permission of the original author) and are part of case law, not explicit legislation.",2023-07-10 14:29:51,kindall,1,NEGATIVE 130,"I agree that anything that the creators of ChatGPT have legal access to (public, purchased, and licensed content) is fair game to train a LLM. But what if there's content that is not public, nor did OpenAI purchase or license the content? If that content is on ""obviously copyright infringing"" websites or torrents is it allowed?",2023-07-10 15:04:04,falco_iii,1,NEGATIVE 131,"If you create a song that has the essence of another song, you can lose in court. To the courts AI isn’t some new thing. It will be interpreted using old laws about cans and strings. Just like some fishing laws are based on mail.",2023-07-10 15:43:16,DANK_ME_YOUR_PM_ME,1,NEGATIVE 132,Tbf... I would rather read the summarized version,2023-07-10 19:22:49,Thor_ultimus,1,NEGATIVE 133,Could really just be a marketing campaign to get people thinking about her book,2023-07-10 20:49:51,AnonymousPussyNommer,1,NEGATIVE 134,"I mean that’s exactly it though, people will use AI versions of some thing over the real thing. I certainly plan on using AI to create music in the style of bands I like. I mean 10,000 new unique different songs from a band that doesn’t make music anymore, sure, I’m into that.",2023-07-10 21:19:59,rathat,1,NEGATIVE 135,">Does copyright law as it exists forbid one from using a copyrighted work as training material without permission? But ""training"" in this case means copying the text into a computer database, so yes that looks like a copyright violation to me. A human can read something and create a summary or criticism within reasonable limits. But the AI doesn't read, it copies the text into memory.",2023-07-10 21:32:27,CleverNickName-69,1,NEGATIVE 136,What about the book reviewers who want to sell their reviews in their example? The AI is stopping them from profiting off of their work.,2023-07-10 23:48:19,DizzyFrogHS,1,POSITIVE 137,The cost wouldn't be astronomical at all. OpenAI could buy the 1 million most popular books at $20 a book for $20 million. This is a drop in the bucket to the billions of dollars they already spent on cloud computing.,2023-07-11 16:47:23,localhost80,2,NEGATIVE 138," It the lawsuit is based on a misunderstanding of how the program works. It doesn’t need access to her book to write a summary. The summary is based on a statistical analysis of other summaries. Maybe her book was included in the training data, but that is unconnected to the summary it provides. They could create a new version without her book in the training data and the summary it generates would be the same.",2023-07-11 04:22:09,podcastcritic,2,NEGATIVE 139,"To be fair, I've read and loved Kafka on the Shore multiple times and still can't summarize it well.",2023-07-10 17:40:31,men3tclis2k,15,NEGATIVE 140,"While it messes up the details, like the role of certain characters, it mostly catches the plot accurately, even for rarer books. I think the author is complaining that.",2023-07-10 18:41:00,PatienceHere,3,NEGATIVE 141,"Transformers, the kind of ML ChatGPT is, has a character length limit before it stops understanding what it is reading. This makes it hard to understand long winded writing like books. It either grabs the original material and is weak at summarizing it, or it grabs multiple summaries of the book online and then parrots those summaries it heard.",2023-07-10 18:35:43,proverbialbunny,8,NEGATIVE 142,>a classic like Harry Potter,2023-07-10 17:36:24,chiniwini,1,POSITIVE 143,"I’ve had it fail at answering basic questions on a book and then ask if it has been trained on the book or just knows it by references. It has then told me it actually has been trained on the book. But the thing is, I don’t think it actually knows, and answers to that kind of question are just as prone to hallucinations as anything else. I.E. I wouldn’t be too surprised if it actually got trained on the book as accused, but I’d be even less surprised if whatever triggered this lawsuit was just AI hallucinations.",2023-07-10 22:50:49,svachalek,1,NEGATIVE 144,"“Information wants to be *expensive*.” — Stewart Brand, 1984",2023-07-10 18:53:09,MonkeyChoker80,8,NEGATIVE 145,"Do you think there would be no problem if a language model was fed the entire bibliography of a certain author and then asked to produce similar content? Not to mention that OpenAI monetizes their software. They are effectively allowing people to use an author's content without compensation while profiting from it.",2023-07-10 15:04:47,lukewarmpiss,4,NEGATIVE 146,Openai will have to show if it was used for training. It's called discovery.,2023-07-10 18:59:48,saltyshart,1,NEGATIVE 147,That book was about being a bed wetter not vaginas.,2023-07-11 05:10:48,monkeysuffrage,1,NEGATIVE 148,"Missed the mark a bit there. The ability of the AI to generate a summary is alleged to be proof that that the AI has the books in its dataset and the books are part of its language training. Given that it can produce imitations of the texts’ styles and content but does not provide attribution to the authors and that the works have not been properly licensed or approved for this use, the plaintiffs believe they have standing to sue and pursuing damages related to the illegal use of their works.",2023-07-10 10:32:28,Kants_Pupil,345,NEGATIVE 149,"Let's not protect the AI. There are already ""AI"" stealing voice actors' voices, so we need to get some protections in place.",2023-07-10 11:56:41,Gavorn,-2,NEGATIVE 150,"Summarising in this context,is not like writing a short review or paraphrasing the plot, its taking the source material and modifying it for the requesters use.",2023-07-10 11:12:28,Arkslippy,-5,NEGATIVE 151,"> So…summarizing a book is illegal now? No, the article is bad. OpenAI pirated the books prior to making summaries.",2023-07-10 17:09:45,dank_the_enforcer,0,NEGATIVE 152,"How does one, human and AI, summarize a book without reading it?",2023-07-10 15:46:55,FaerieQueene510,0,NEGATIVE 153,So would google searching an image and using in a PowerPoint presentation.,2023-07-10 22:06:06,Bagelbau5,2,NEGATIVE 154,"> If AI uses copyright photos or artwork as a basis to create a photo or artwork it could be strongly argued that it is violating that copyright I think it'd depend on how that work is being used, whether it could constitute a fair use or not. That particular case being ruled as an infringement doesn't necessarily mean another somewhat similar case would have the same outcome - the devil is in the details (hence why these things are determined on a case by case basis - definitely taking existing precedent into account though).",2023-07-11 18:20:20,travelsonic,1,NEGATIVE 155,"I'm an author, art is a thing. It's not abstract. It's an object you can hold or see or read. AI creates art because at the end of a prompt there is a thing. Effort, inspiration, or intent has nothing to do with it. A person with 20 years and the utmost intensity can create garbage while someone who treats it as a joke can create a masterpiece in a couple months. The metaphysical proponents of art are grasping at straws. Law or even just basic practical realities should not be enshrining arbitrary abstract ideas. Leave that to churches and philosophers.",2023-07-10 11:11:35,Twokindsofpeople,48,NEGATIVE 156,"If art is no longer allowed to speak for itself, because of your ""it’s not a product"" copium, then artists are truly fucked.",2023-07-10 11:32:56,FlyingMute,14,NEGATIVE 157,"Why do you think marvel movies and whatever shitty book they're talking about here and on Tiktok are so popular? I mostly hate read this sub because of takes like these. These people want content, not art",2023-07-10 10:59:50,lukewarmpiss,6,NEGATIVE 158,"None of that has anything to do with copyright. You can claim that AI lacks the ""capability of interpretation, which is required to create art."", But if you are trying to claim that it is comparable to infringing copying, then it is absolutely a relevant counterargument that **the degree to which it records and recycles fata from a specific work**, is comparable to the deegree to which a human brain remembers books that it has read.",2023-07-10 16:47:35,Genoscythe_,1,NEGATIVE 159,"Do you consider photography to be art? The camera doesn't interpret, it's all the human on the other end. It's similar with AI art. It's the human that constrains what the AI will capture just as a photographer constrains what's in their lens. AI is a new medium for artists. The trouble is anyone can get an AI to to throw out some shit same way as anyone with a phone can take a terrible photo. It's still in its infancy, who knows what can be done with it down the line.",2023-07-10 12:57:00,Artorias_lives,-4,NEGATIVE 160,"I think we're still a long way off from AI art that actually moves people. I'm impressed by what AI can do with images but it never gets beyond a ""huh, neato"" reaction from me. Don't even get me started on music, which seems to be completely beyond the grasp of AI at the moment. It can create some decent background music for TikTok vids maybe but I'm not impressed yet. I see no reason why AI wouldn't eventually be able to create something at a master level. We're in the infant stage with the technology and humans aren't quite as unpredictable as we like to believe.",2023-07-10 18:44:55,geodebug,1,NEGATIVE 161,">they aren’t creating anything The fact that they blatantly ***are***, is eventually going to snowball from this merely being a silly point to make, into an actual legal hurdle for all these lawsuits. If you prompt ChatGPT to write a a news article about a subject matter that you just made up on the spot, and it writes several paragraphs that have never been written down before by anyone else, then the idea that it is not ""truly creative"", or ""doesn't have a soul"", remains an abstract philosophical/spiritual point to make. The plain fact remains that it is still far closer to being an original text, than to being a copy of Sarah Silverman's writing just because the statistics of how she uses the english language were factored into 0.000000001% of a language model. (or at least it is as original, as any other rearrangement of existing words and phrases based on past learning of a language can be, including when it is done by a human brain). Whatever narrow argument writers might have on the basis of copyright law, is restricted to how the model training itself is supposed to be an act of illegal copying even if their text is not getting redistributed. But that is a fairly weak case, so they have to keep overstating it with the silly argument that since the AI's output is not ""true art"" in some spiritual sense, it must be stolen from them personally.",2023-07-10 10:12:43,Genoscythe_,113,NEGATIVE 162,"This statement is correct ""current"" AI isn't impressive or useful (except for certain uses like creating summaries and so on) . They are not creating anything in a way ... but do humans? In the end, you are a statistical machine that contains your interpretive model of the world. You are not creating anything, your interpretation of the world is just very different. Such difference in works and/or derivative from works, push us further in science, math and culture. Yes, AI is not very good at it yet. It doesn't mean it is not creating anything. It has its own interpretation based on much smaller data set in some areas and much larger set in others. At the end, it produces a generalised output from output of its own model. Its interpretation is different / limited as it has vast knowledge but it has shallow depth (understanding). This is something that will get better over time. However, to say these do not create anything is rather short sighted. As it produces possible future states (even fictional ones). They are just different to ours as we have limited knowledge with high depth while current GenAI have vast knowledge with shallow depth. Tldr It is just not good at producing the wanted results but it is creative.",2023-07-10 10:19:19,Short_Change,-9,NEGATIVE 163,"The issue in the suit is that the friend pirated the book to read, not that they made a summary.",2023-07-10 16:05:40,jonhuang,8,NEGATIVE 164,How will it improve our lives? Can it stop forest fires and climate change? Can it force companies to give their workers a living wage? Will it stop rape and sexual assault? Will it make our government sign into law free healthcare for all?,2023-07-10 16:11:05,FaerieQueene510,-5,NEGATIVE 165,"For art, I think it might be hitting its peak. I've been seeing people start to have trouble with AI getting in their datasets and starting to Hapsburg the negative qualities of the product. This means that it constantly needs new art for better datasets,and if AI becomes the new normal or outcompetes real artists, it will end up taking itself out. Or more likely ebbing and growing like rabbits and wolves. Animation and comics I don't think will have an issue, there seems to be a distinct lack of the perception of ""flow"" that seems to leave most jilted and inorganic.",2023-07-12 09:18:39,Redomydude2,1,NEGATIVE 166,Its not about having read it. Its about it being used in training data sets without consent or compensation. A human reading something and a ML-algorithm being trained on something are two very different things.,2023-07-10 12:11:59,KronosCifer,18,NEGATIVE 167,"> The closest they could do is claim that they illegally accessed the materials, but that is entirely different and since they don't have any idea on how they accessed the material But the article clearly states that they know exactly how the AI accessed the data. It was from a data set for AI training called The Pile. The Pile contains all of the Bibliotik tracker data on books, which the authors' teams are claiming are blatantly illegal. So that's the basis of the claim.",2023-07-10 17:10:50,jruhlman09,2,NEGATIVE 168,">they don't have any idea on how they accessed the material it would be a hard case to prove. During discovery openai would have to show their training set.",2023-07-10 19:08:21,saltyshart,1,NEGATIVE 169,"A person could very easily fuck up and accidentally copy too much, making it copyright infringement. Kid's book reports plagiarize all the time, and they are reprimanded in the school instead of sued because book reports aren't commercial.",2023-07-10 17:04:49,Letrabottle,10,NEGATIVE 170,">I think the most big thing is that people are realizing that they're creative work isn't all that creative and watching something spit out in 5 seconds which took them 5 years to put together well maybe not as good it's 90% there. Let's come back to this in 2123, after all the creatives have stopped creating and the AIs are churning out content trained on data from the 2040s.",2023-07-10 19:04:52,binaryeye,5,NEGATIVE 171,"Do you really think there is no difference between using your experience and culture as a starting point for your work and feeding a machine copyrighted content and ask it to output similar stuff? For me, it's not even about art. Machines cannot create art, as it requires intent. For me it's about a company profiteering of of someone's work and not paying the original authors.",2023-07-10 15:06:28,lukewarmpiss,8,NEGATIVE 172,One of the things everyone gets drilled into their head in a university history program is that every idea is fundamentally built out of the synthesis of many other ideas one is exposed to. Nothing is wholly original and copyright is bad overall for the development of the species,2023-07-10 14:13:25,SkepticalAdventurer,6,NEGATIVE 173,"> I think the most big thing is that people are realizing that they're creative work isn't all that creative and watching something spit out in 5 seconds which took them 5 years to put together well maybe not as good it's 90% there. This is it. People who thought their jobs were safe from automation just got a kick in the ass and are responding with lawsuits to try to tamp down AI.",2023-07-10 23:49:30,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 174,"It's unlikely to turn out in Silverman's favor. I can go to the library and read her book for free, then write jokes that may or may not be inspired or influenced by what I read. She can certainly sue me because I didn't ""pay"" for her content, but to win a copyright suit she needs to demonstrate that my jokes actually resemble what's in her book. Since everything I've ever heard or seen is part of my ""training"", the ruling she's seeking would require a payment system that would essentially make it impossible to profit by writing ""new"" material. So unless you're looking forward to her being laughed out of court, I'm not sure what you're anticipating.",2023-07-10 11:50:58,anotherlevl,6,NEGATIVE 175,Wouldn’t be if I was you,2023-07-10 16:48:31,Turbulent-Jump-4884,4,POSITIVE 176,Same,2023-07-10 11:16:39,Novice89,-2,POSITIVE 177,You should start getting more skilled at using AI ... right ... about ... 10 minutes ago.,2023-07-10 17:45:55,grrahh,0,NEGATIVE 178,did you save that output somewhere?,2023-07-12 22:29:37,ninjasaid13,1,NEGATIVE 179,"> They cannot demonstrate copyright infringement at any stage, Really? From the article: >in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together from “a copy of the contents of the Bibliotik private tracker.” Bibliotik and the other “shadow libraries” listed, says the lawsuit, are “flagrantly illegal.” That's Meta stating that they used a source that (from my understanding) is well established as copyright infringing.",2023-07-10 15:26:55,snark_attak,3,NEGATIVE 180,Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.,2023-07-10 16:11:46,rubbingmango,2,NEGATIVE 181,"It proves the AI has read the book. Which, I assume they're arguing they should have been asked permission to.",2023-07-10 23:20:38,DaBobMob,1,NEGATIVE 182,"It'd also make it impossible to make a system where people did consent, that adn given the breadth of what constitutes ""AI"" that'd kill off so called AI that is already being used in tools from Photoshop's new (generative fill?) tool, to SpectraLayer's analysis for separating audio into separate stems for separate instruments. It seems like a ""solution"" that doesn't need to be done to handle the issues being faced - that, and with open source versions of various AI technologies, enforcing it would be damn near impossible.",2023-07-11 18:16:38,travelsonic,1,NEGATIVE 183,People are down voting you but it's true. You only need to watch the Zukerberg hearing to see how under educated our legislation is on the internet.,2023-07-10 14:36:37,AuxiliarySimian,4,POSITIVE 184,I lost respect for her when she started smearing Al Franken's victim's and saying Louis CK's victims were making too big of a deal of what he did.,2023-07-10 21:47:35,blancfoolien,1,NEGATIVE 185,When was that?,2023-07-10 13:58:32,windwaker910,8,NEGATIVE 186,As a millennial not living in America - the first time I was exposed to her was as the bitchy girlfriend of Jack Blacks friend in School of Rock. She’s always seemed like a horrid person ever since,2023-07-11 13:42:23,desperaste,1,NEGATIVE 187,The lawyers will gladly take the money,2023-07-10 16:51:44,Turbulent-Jump-4884,1,POSITIVE 188,they didn't go to a public library though to get these datasets though,2023-07-10 21:35:06,DoopSlayer,1,NEGATIVE 189,"**Personal conduct** Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.",2023-07-11 02:15:50,CrazyCatLady108,1,POSITIVE 190,So do the robot apologists,2023-07-10 10:14:28,star0fth3sh0w,7,NEGATIVE 191,Kinda the same way buying a book and reading it is different than asking a friend about the book.,2023-07-10 19:10:41,saltyshart,0,NEGATIVE 192,It's kind of how she earns a living. Do you devalue writing to the point that you think authors shouldn't be paid for their work?,2023-07-11 07:27:06,,2,NEGATIVE 193,Cuz they didn't create chatgpt. Openai did.,2023-07-10 19:12:21,saltyshart,2,NEGATIVE 194,But if your friend digitizes it and reproduces it to 200k people it's illegal.,2023-07-10 19:13:18,saltyshart,3,NEGATIVE 195,"the article explains how Meta used training materials pulled from Bibliotik, so not only are they accessing pirated materials but they're also disseminating them that's hundreds of thousands of instances",2023-07-10 21:34:28,DoopSlayer,3,NEGATIVE 196,AI can't produce anything. It can only sample from human created works. Of which are copy written. Everything created by AI is plagiarism.,2023-07-10 22:25:24,reddit_names,4,NEGATIVE 197,"I think it depends on how the AI works. I know Valve is blocking games that were created with AI atm because some of the assets used contained pieces of copyrighted work. Like the AI isn’t making something new based on something it was fed, it was actually taking the actual work and modifying it.",2023-07-10 20:51:32,descendingangel87,89,NEGATIVE 198,But they didn’t ‘hire the band’. The lawsuit alleges they obtained books illegally through BitTorrents. If that’s the case it seems like a pretty viable lawsuit from what I can tell.,2023-07-10 23:18:27,kennyggallin,30,NEGATIVE 199,">Machine learning is more like.. hiring a band to listen to and copy the music. It seems like you're thinking like a programmer, not a lawyer. Most software licenses rely on the idea that without a license the user doesn't have permission to copy the software into the computer memory so if you don't have a license you are committing copyright infringement with your unauthorized use. Feeding the music data to an AI means copying it into computer memory unchanged so it can create derivative works and in a legal sense I think this is not the same as a musician listening to a song and then playing their own version of it. You're also ignoring that there are limits that even a human has in re-using someone else's song. If you commercially use too much of another song in your own song without a license, the other songwriter will be entitled to some of your profits. Even if you just perform a cover of someone else's song in a bar, that bar better pay an ASCAP license. I think even a busker on the corner performing someone else's song for tips is violating copyright, but no one is going to bother going after them.",2023-07-10 21:28:15,CleverNickName-69,28,NEGATIVE 200,">I seriously doubt this crosses any actual IP infringement laws, though. I doubt that. AI is only as good as the inputs. Every little piece of it could be regurgitating her shit. Or other authors shit. If so, OpenAI / Microsoft should be paying. It's just bootlicking to believe otherwise.",2023-07-10 22:22:29,formerfatboys,-1,NEGATIVE 201,">It's definitely an existential crisis for human art expression. Only an existential crisis for people who produce derivative crap. AI can only generate more of the same. It can’t create a new style or be original.",2023-07-11 03:55:05,podcastcritic,0,NEGATIVE 202,"I think the flip side of this is that even if content creators win in this battle, in the long run I foresee that precedent being used to push for an even greater stranglehold of product control on copyrighted work. The moment that momentum shifts, license-holders will use that support to chip away even further at fair use. “In order to protect our creative talent in this new content landscape, we’re lobbying for these extended protections that we *promise* we aren’t going to use to line our own pockets at their expense.” And none of that is to say that I think artists shouldn’t fight against this. They absolutely should. But we all need to keep a cool head about how far and how hard we push on copyright protections, because I promise you Disney and Warner and Fox and Paramount and Comcast all have lawyers already looking at ways they can angle this to accelerate their own interests.",2023-07-11 00:59:37,sdwoodchuck,1,NEGATIVE 203,"Copyright covers derivative works, so yes it's covered by copyright law.",2023-07-11 05:16:20,Suzzie_sunshine,1,POSITIVE 204,"Napster was a file search and download tool. It didn't host the files, the users did. A file was downloaded from dozens of other users and recombined on the downloader's machine. The tool itself didn't do anything more illegal than a web browser does. It's just its unfortunate fate to be used by so many people wanting and illegally providing copyrighted content. Language models like ChatGPT scan through an entire document and link it up in their neural network. It's fully capable of reciting the whole document if prompted, so copyright infringement is definitely an issue here.",2023-07-11 15:59:47,graebot,1,NEGATIVE 205,OpenAI is owned by Microsoft not Meta,2023-07-10 19:49:47,kree8r,1,NEGATIVE 206,"TPB's about as user-friendly as you could ever need. Search the name of what you want, click the magnet link, your torrent app launches with all the info it needs. For free, of course.",2023-07-10 22:59:47,ErikTheAngry,1,NEGATIVE 207,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 16:07:58,,37,POSITIVE 208,">The fair use exception that would apply to reviews and summaries has not been tested with generative AI ingestion. It's [pretty close though](https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-court-decision-for-data-science-and-machine-learning-44cfc1c1bcaf). If >""Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use."" then why would that not also apply to other transformative AI uses of books? It's been established that you can make a dataset without permission and use it to build software, if you aren't actually distributing the original.",2023-07-10 20:16:14,No_Industry9653,14,NEGATIVE 209,"> The fair use exception that would apply to reviews and summaries has not been tested with generative AI ingestion. It doesn't need to. It's already settled.",2023-07-10 23:29:01,crazysoup23,3,NEGATIVE 210,Wouldn’t this scenario be more akin to going to a library and summarizing a book?,2023-07-10 16:01:42,Shok3001,18,NEGATIVE 211,"*“But your honor, they were so easy to rob!”*",2023-07-10 16:18:07,Aughilai,13,NEGATIVE 212,"Just checked - chatgpt is not giving me access to full book. So OpenAI didn't copy the book and start selling it. Copyright law here would apply to actual published work/excerpts from it that are unaccessible without purchase. Otherwise I guess musicians would be able to copyright chords and no one would be able to remix G, C, D again. Can't imagine SS book has a lot of potential for sales - difficult to see this beyond marketing tactic",2023-07-10 23:06:52,sandsurfngbomber,2,NEGATIVE 213,"Honestly I think AI shows just how screwed up our copyright laws are in certain situations, which can lead to rulings that make absolutely no sense to anyone. For example, if a human buys a copy of a book, are they allowed to read it to their children who didn't pay for the book? Yes. Can they read it a group of people, like a bunch of children in a classroom? Yes. If a human buys a book are they allowed to memorize the entire thing and recite it whenever they want? Yes. But if an AI does any of those things it's suddenly legally questionable. If a human asks the AI to tell them what's on each page in a book that's piracy, even though it would be perfectly legal for a human to read to them what's on each page. If a human asks the AI to write some fan fiction based off the original book it's also considered legally problematic because it's using what it learned from someone else's IP, even though humans are allowed to write fan fiction all the time.",2023-07-11 16:33:30,ShadowLiberal,2,NEGATIVE 214,"no but you can go to a library, READ a book, then write a review.",2023-07-10 18:56:42,Jiggawatz,1,NEGATIVE 215,But the data has been trained on. It's is not copying.,2023-07-10 16:39:51,tamal4444,-3,POSITIVE 216,">That's not how copyright works. I think this is the fundamental problem. Our classic notion of copyright law will need to change a bit. AI is changing everything, and people will exploit gaps while they can.",2023-07-10 22:11:28,DubiousDrewski,1,NEGATIVE 217,"But you can write a read a book and write a knock-off it, or publish a summary.",2023-07-11 03:59:30,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 218,"From the article: >in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together from “a copy of the contents of the Bibliotik private tracker.” Bibliotik and the other “shadow libraries” listed, says the lawsuit, are “flagrantly illegal.” Looks like that's already been admitted by at least one of the defendants.",2023-07-10 15:13:42,snark_attak,373,NEGATIVE 219,"In my opinion that shouldn't need to be ""proved"" it should be provided during discovery. Like that's just a matter of fact: they either did or did not use the book during training, they know the answer, they need to provide it. What the lawyers need to prove is whether or not such use is actually a violation of the law. But the actual *fact*, the details of *whether or not it happened*, should be made available. Unless the AI company decides to just flat out lie, but I have to assume that's not where we are at. We will have much bigger problems in that case.",2023-07-10 15:39:28,almightySapling,20,NEGATIVE 220,You could ask it,2023-07-10 14:13:45,IronyIntended2,-3,POSITIVE 221,"I mean if it can gather enough pieces, willingly or by design, then it shouldnt matter.",2023-07-10 14:40:08,Zech08,-9,POSITIVE 222,"That depends. You can play an entrapment about it. Circulate a random book via torrent or upload to a ""shadow libraries"" as they claim. Leave it there for a month. Now ask the AI for a summary. If it gives to you, and no other site gives you a summary, you proved it collects the book illegally. But I don't know what their process is going to be.",2023-07-10 14:49:39,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 223,Or that it did not It borrow it from a library.,2023-07-10 17:52:03,Mitthrawnuruo,1,NEGATIVE 224,The summaries themselves are also protectable as derivative works though. You would just change the plaintiff.,2023-07-10 23:45:54,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 225,"I think they want to stop the access to the books, or for openAI/meta to pay a substantial amount of money to gain access to those books (I expect the former). I don't think this is about one book and its summary, but to prevent the access so others won't have it as well (to make a precedent).",2023-07-10 14:47:10,Defoler,32,NEGATIVE 226,"> but what would be the material damages? They don't need to prove actual (material) damages. Copyright law allows for statutory damages. It's kind of the point of the law, otherwise there wouldn't be really any enforcement of copyright at all. $150,000 per incident per 17 U.S. Code § 504.",2023-07-10 16:57:26,dank_the_enforcer,8,NEGATIVE 227,"It's likely in the lawsuit, but I think they are aiming at a share of the profit, i.e. a license fee plus damages. The entire point of the lawsuit is that this legal and commercial arrangements weren't worked out ahead of time and OpenAI is continuously profiting from the illegal scrape of the author's creative work. OpenAI isn't all gummy bears and candy save-the-world-to-bring-us-AI. They are a for-profit company partnered with Microsoft for the purpose of turning 10's of billions of dollars investment into trillions of dollars. They did this by scraping the very words I'm typing now into their product (amongst others, obviously), without my consent, without my knowledge. And I'm powerless to stop them (unless reddit steps up, rather than stepping on 3rd party apps after the horse has left the barn). These authors too. But they have a copyright behind their words which gives some power to renegotiate the contract behind the scrape.",2023-07-10 16:51:16,,1,NEGATIVE 228,"> The sale of one book? For each book ingested, which can be a significant amount in total. Which can be significantly amplified by statutory damages.",2023-07-10 20:31:12,alexanderpas,1,NEGATIVE 229,"> What's interesting is asking what part of torrenting and file sharing is actually illegal. I guess this is similar to downloading a pirated version of a game or a software or even a movie. While it is illegal, most publishers aren't really going to go after you. They might go after someone as an example if he shares it with others are if he is distributing an illegal item (part of a whole, won't matter). But here they aren't going because it is sharing it, but the fact that the AI acquired it.",2023-07-10 21:22:04,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 230,"There is a big difference between fan fiction and providing the copyright material. This is not the same. Here is whether *the access* to the books was illegally or not.",2023-07-10 18:32:44,Defoler,0,NEGATIVE 231,"I would rather circulate the dictionary, thanks.",2023-07-10 15:28:28,OW_FUCK,4,NEGATIVE 232,They will have to prove that part wasn’t quoted on some random site due to review or something. But I get your point if they can make it quote on something that is only in the book.,2023-07-10 18:33:35,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 233,And how many books would the AI read and have to pay? That would be a lot of books and a lot of money.,2023-07-10 18:29:00,Defoler,0,NEGATIVE 234,"If that's how they got it. If not, it would be perjury. Lying is not generally a good defense strategy.",2023-07-10 19:13:55,needlenozened,1,NEGATIVE 235,I guess they will have to show proof of it.,2023-07-10 21:38:31,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 236,"Depends on how you use it. For example a site that review a book, and talks about it and giver a summary. Or a youtuber doing a ""book report"" about that book. They are doing money off it. That can also fall under commercial use. So I'm not sure. I think that could fall under fair use unless they share the whole book.",2023-07-10 21:28:51,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 237,I expect they get donated books or get free from publishers. So It is like you can do whatever you want with a book you bought or got gifted. Even rent it. So I don't think this is the same thing.,2023-07-10 21:18:52,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 238,"Is selling material for use in AI training an existing industry, though? I haven't heard about anything like that. Point being, the position of ""this is something authors should be getting paid for"" is different to ""this is something authors do get paid for, and I didn't.""",2023-07-10 20:31:27,EightsidedHexagon,8,NEGATIVE 239,"Making training into an incredible slog by forcing them to obtain rightsholder permission for everything AI reads and learns from is how you hand leadership of what will probably be the most transformative technology since the steam engine to people in other countries, because it will make it essentially impossible to do anything significant with it in the US.",2023-07-10 14:55:26,prestodigitarium,-20,NEGATIVE 240,"Maybe. But the world of AI is moving too fast I’d argue. If we make a law that says you need to pay authors and artists and people who post on social media, the entire technology will move overseas, which will be bad for everyone in the US, including all these creators.",2023-07-10 14:37:14,sluuuurp,-7,NEGATIVE 241,[entfernt],2023-07-10 14:50:48,,-13,POSITIVE 242,"> The article stated ChatGPT was able to reproduce summaries of the actual works so I can see how that could negatively impact their sales if only marginally. This is already not illegal though. Hell there is people who read books solely through fan wikis. People do summaries on youtube, on review sites and so on. There was even a case of someone selling summaries on Will Wight's works on Amazon and the author himself complained about not being able to do anything about it in an AMA.",2023-07-10 14:20:58,Falsus,22,NEGATIVE 243,"If being able to reproduce summaries of the book is illegal and would reduce sales of the book... Where do things like: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bedwetter * https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/theater/review-sarah-silvermans-bedwetter.html * https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/jun/07/the-bedwetter-review-sarah-silverman-musical-is-a-crude-but-kind-success fall? How do you prove that it was trained on the text of the book rather than other accessible summaries and reviews? ChatGPT summaries should be no more encumbered than Wikipedia or Goodreads summaries.",2023-07-10 16:27:01,shagieIsMe,3,NEGATIVE 244,"If someone is using chatgpt of all to summary a book and not even doing piracy, it's safe to say they were never going to buy it in the first place",2023-07-10 13:13:46,NaRaGaMo,16,NEGATIVE 245,Summaries are *not* copyright infringement. What an absolutely absurd notion.,2023-07-10 16:06:52,HerbaciousTea,1,NEGATIVE 246,I'm going to email prosecution a list of the threads here about how you don't actually need to read books because AI can summarize the chapters for you,2023-07-10 15:37:53,non_avian,1,NEGATIVE 247,"I assume the actual damages inflicted comes from OpenAI having allegedly used an illegal copy of the works in question in order to make a product that they are selling. IE, there was no commercial agreement in place and the author went uncompensated for their work despite being used to create the product. And since OpenAI sells priority access subscriptions to ChatGPT, I don't think Fair Use applies here. I do want to compare it to using licensed software to make a profit without a commercial license but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if the comparison is apt.",2023-07-10 19:28:44,TgCCL,1,NEGATIVE 248,"> If antipiracy rulings will affect this then it's not about actual damages Copyright law has never been about actual damages, but statutory damages.",2023-07-10 17:02:22,dank_the_enforcer,2,NEGATIVE 249,Would they? They could always buy the ebook version. Or use a library. I'm not saying they did but piracy is not the only option.,2023-07-10 13:37:03,insane_contin,3,NEGATIVE 250,"> Using someone’s work to create a machine to produce pseudo-copies of that work is NOT a review or a summary. It could be construed as a copy and should be tested. To be fair, fair use isn't limited to literally just reviews or parodies - going into many areas of software development, and reverse engineering. (SEGA Vs Accolade for instance). Actually, the more I think about it, I wonder if there is a parallel that can be drawn to that, and similar cases (including Nintendo v. Tengen)...",2023-07-10 20:28:36,travelsonic,3,NEGATIVE 251,Your understanding of machine learning and AI is pseudoscientific. Any court which allows actual machine learning experts to speak would not likely rule the way you expect.,2023-07-10 14:08:24,AnOnlineHandle,-4,NEGATIVE 252,"> I think similar laws will need to be brought out in different countries to stop lawsuits like this. This lawsuit is about copyright infringement before (and independent of) training/summaries.",2023-07-10 17:02:51,dank_the_enforcer,9,NEGATIVE 253,that's misinformation (about japan). japan actually made this sort of thing extra illegal.,2023-07-10 17:31:17,BeeOk1235,6,NEGATIVE 254,"I thought the same thing, until I read some comments here mentioning that the main point seems to be that they did not pay for the material used as training data. Meaning they are free to use copyrighted texts as training data, but it must be sourced legitimately (whatever that turns out to be…)",2023-07-10 14:13:19,AsFarAsItGoes,2,NEGATIVE 255,That is in fact exactly what copyright protects against,2023-07-10 13:16:46,foxtail-lavender,-4,POSITIVE 256,"We already have musicians getting sued for a ""vibe"" - see Blurred Lines. The jury was easily swayed by some 'musicologist'. That case did not even have some complex music theory. That decision was absurd. It doesn't matter misconception or not. Copyright law is already an absolute mess - adding another layer for your layman juror to mull over from an 'expert'. It doesn't even matter whats happening really. Is the legal system prepared to litigate this shit with layman jurors.",2023-07-10 13:51:58,4r1sco5hootahz,1,NEGATIVE 257,I don't think she needs chat gpt for that.,2023-07-10 13:59:15,GODHATHNOOPINION,-2,NEGATIVE 258,"> There is no laws against this. Nor is this what the lawsuit is about. It's about the copyright infringement that did happen as part of this process, not about the infringement that didn't happen.",2023-07-10 17:04:17,dank_the_enforcer,6,NEGATIVE 259,You can’t just transform a book into a movie without negotiating rights though,2023-07-10 12:54:25,sunnbeta,20,NEGATIVE 260,"> If I make a photo edit of two photos without permission to use them, I am violating copyright law whether I make a profit on that edit or not. Do you mean edit or bashing together as in to create a collage? It'd depend on how you'd do it, if so (on top of fair use or not being determined on a case by case basis)",2023-07-10 20:26:30,travelsonic,1,NEGATIVE 261,"Doesn't answer for her book now being in the dataset and accessible. The only thing keeping AI learning from being open and shut copyright infringement is obfuscation. If you take out all the layers of algorithm and look at the flow chart you are left with ""take copy of copyrighted material"" be that book or web article, or anything, ""and store a full copy of it in memory to reference when needed."" Now, humans can look at a work and memorize it and that's OK, but an AI is just a computer program made by humans. If it stores copies of copyrighted material that automatically means that the material has been copied, and if it wasn't purchased that copying is likely illegal. Ultimately whoever gathered the data infringed when they copied it into the dataset. Even if it only counts as one book sale in damages it sets the precedent and could result in charges for each work. That's without even getting into the derivative work issue. This is just the legal ""with a computer"" thing all over again, just ""with AI"". Copying copyrighted works is still copying, even if it's in computer memory and even if that memory is accessed by a collection of algorithms that is referred to as AI. Edit: here is the relevant bit from the article. in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together from “a copy of the contents of the Bibliotik private tracker.” Bibliotik and the other “shadow libraries” listed, says the lawsuit, are “flagrantly illegal.”",2023-07-11 07:54:43,,0,NEGATIVE 262,"> Maybe her book was included in the training data So they copied the book into the training dataset... which is copyright infringement... that's exactly the point if you read the article. > The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together from “a copy of the contents of the Bibliotik private tracker.” Bibliotik and the other “shadow libraries” listed, says the lawsuit, are “flagrantly illegal.” For context, this is what a [page](https://www.site-shot.com/cached_image/DgfwHiAXEe6V1AJCrBEACA) sharing torrent links to Bibliotik looks like. As you can see, it looks very legal and legitimate.",2023-07-11 11:12:20,-The_Blazer-,1,NEGATIVE 263,"There’s a difference between training and reading though. Massive massive amounts of text went into its training and made it what it is. But it doesn’t “remember” them verbatim, they just influence how it processes everything else post training.",2023-07-10 22:54:51,svachalek,1,NEGATIVE 264,"By classic I meant a book with a lot of sources and informations about it because it's so well known. At first I was going to use Les Misérables as example, but I feel like Harry Potter is the best example because you can certainly find informations about any detail in the book somewhere online",2023-07-11 20:43:06,Hyperion542,1,POSITIVE 265,"If it produces recognizable chunks of the original works, then that's definitely infringement. If it produces recognizable plot points and characters from one from the original works, that would hinge on whether it's deemed a derivative work of the originals. If it's just in the same style, then it's probably no issue, because style is not copyrightable. The profit motive is a factor in fair use as well but if no identifiable fragments of the works of the author are being produced to begin with, then it's hard to claim any kind of infringement. Fair use is a defense for infringement (""yeah, I did copy, but it was OK for these reasons"") but for it to come into play there first has to be infringement. Others have suggested that the infringement in question is in reading the book into the model to begin with. This might get more traction (I didn't think of it but multiple copies are necessarily made in the process of fetching an e-book from the Web, storing it on disk, reading it back into memory for processing, etc).",2023-07-10 18:16:17,kindall,6,NEGATIVE 266,">Do you think there would be no problem if a language model was fed the entire bibliography of a certain author and then asked to produce similar content? Is it a problem if a human does this? >Not to mention that OpenAI monetizes their software. So can a human imitating an author's style... >They are effectively allowing people to use an author's content without compensation while profiting from it. Only in the same way as a human imitating an author's style...",2023-07-11 02:51:56,Aaron_Hamm,0,NEGATIVE 267,"yes, but if you can't tell your work was used without being told, it weakens the case that your work was vital to the training",2023-07-10 19:47:31,kindall,2,POSITIVE 268,"> AI has the books in its dataset and the books are part of its language training. The books are not in its dataset. That's not how language models work. They don't store a copy of every single text used for training it (in GPT-4's case a very large chunk of all text on the internet). Instead they use that text during training to form a neural network which allows the model to predict text based on a prompt. When asking it to summerize a book, the AI isn't looking into its dataset for a copy of that book, reading it and producing the summary. It is just guessing words based on an extremely in-depth mathematical understanding of language. It's more akin to a person recalling a book they read and giving you a synopsis. That person doesn't have a copy of the book stored in their brain. So, at most OpenAI owes them payment on single e-book copies of their books used during the training of the program. That's the only legal ground for this case. There is no legal requirement for licencing works to be used like this, since until very recently this use didn't exist and thus laws and regulations regarding this just don't exist yet.",2023-07-10 11:27:15,rockingmonkey,55,NEGATIVE 269,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 10:42:29,,68,POSITIVE 270,"Since when do imitations of style and content require attribution? That’s very different from copies of original works. When a human author writes in a style inspired by another writer’s work, have they committed copyright infringement?",2023-07-10 10:48:50,,41,NEGATIVE 271,">The ability of the AI to generate a summary is alleged to be proof that that the AI has the books in its dataset and the books are part of its language training. But it isn't a proof of that. When you ask the model to summarize a book, it will ""draw from the knowledge"" (the parallel to human thinking is sketchy) it gained by training on texts by other people who summarized the book - reviews, articles etc., which are usually freely accessible on the internet. The training data didn't need to contain the book itself.",2023-07-10 13:45:24,smjsmok,10,NEGATIVE 272,"There is no dataset though, chatgpt doesn't search for information in its dataset and then answers you. It was trained on the data and learnt it",2023-07-10 13:15:46,NaRaGaMo,18,NEGATIVE 273,"> The ability of the AI to generate a summary is alleged to be proof that that the AI has the books in its dataset No it isn't. It could just as easily have been trained on a review of or article about the book.",2023-07-10 12:58:14,Les-Freres-Heureux,7,NEGATIVE 274,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 12:08:25,,3,POSITIVE 275,"That's like saying that if I, a human, can summarise a book, then I must have a copy of that book in my posession, and unless I provide a receipt for purchasing that book I should be treated as if I had illegally stolen it, which I think is wrong on several levels.",2023-07-10 12:41:55,Artess,-3,NEGATIVE 276,"Classic reddit, says something wrong, doesn't own it up. Flees the scene.",2023-07-10 11:52:12,perpetualgrunt,0,NEGATIVE 277,"> The ability of the AI to generate a summary is alleged to be proof that that the AI has the books in its dataset and the books are part of its language training. Nope.",2023-07-10 23:36:40,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 278,"Holding back progress to save jobs? The Luddites are back. Fuck jobs. Our goal should be enhanced productivity and wealth distribution so that we all need to work less, not trapping ourselves in the grind of meaningless work by stalling technological advancements.",2023-07-10 13:57:58,,9,NEGATIVE 279,"How about we take the side of truth, and not cheer on people suing vaccine makers for inserting microchips into vaccines because we want to achieve some other goal and don't care if their claims are correct or not.",2023-07-10 14:14:45,AnOnlineHandle,1,NEGATIVE 280,"If you think there’s a world where we go back, where all of the “Mr Krabs does Eminem raps” videos leave YouTube, I don’t think you know how the internet works. We’re never going back. If it’s made illegal it’ll just happen on slightly sketchier websites.",2023-07-10 14:39:35,sluuuurp,0,NEGATIVE 281,"Art can be temporal as well, though. But yeah, it takes up time and space, even when it’s purely performance.",2023-07-10 11:58:52,oep4,9,POSITIVE 282,"""Because at the end theres a thing"" See, it's about a product. Thank you for validating you dont understand art and think of it as a product.",2023-07-10 11:14:19,T3chn0Punk,-29,NEGATIVE 283,"How exactly would you define art? From what you've said here, I imagine ""any form of information that can be consumed,"" would you agree with that?",2023-07-10 20:37:02,EightsidedHexagon,0,NEGATIVE 284,"Well, no, art can even include the lack of something. Montages work on the very principle that the human mind will create its own interpretation of an event. Over the century, since the montage has been invented, there have been thousands of books, performances, and compositions that expanded that conception. It is an abstract but pervievable circumstance that operates partially without physical or temporal restraint, expanding the extent of which the audience's forced to perceive.",2023-07-12 09:04:11,Redomydude2,1,POSITIVE 285,I think you're lost in the capitalist sauce. You're not making sense,2023-07-10 12:27:40,T3chn0Punk,-5,NEGATIVE 286,"They're popular because people like them. When you start drawing a line between what is ""art"" and what is ""content"" because you don't see merit in something then you're honestly just a pretentious douche.",2023-07-10 18:18:46,super_noentiendo,7,NEGATIVE 287,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 11:03:27,,-2,POSITIVE 288,"Its 1000% about content. Ngl, Brandon Sanderson's stormlight archive felt like it was sold as content, not art. ""Look 45hrs of audio book for 1 audible credit"". And that's how it felt reading it, like it's just going and going and going for the sake of llength. I think that's what these failed crypto bros want, an infinite amount of free art commissions and infinite books to read. None of it art, but an unending deluge of content to consume.",2023-07-10 11:12:29,T3chn0Punk,-7,NEGATIVE 289,I wasnt talking about copywriting. I was talking about how pedantic and wrong you lot are about AI and art.,2023-07-10 17:37:33,T3chn0Punk,-1,NEGATIVE 290,"Photography does include interpretation. This is what I mean. AI bros come out and say wrong shit about art CONSTANTLY. Go away and go give your money to crypto bros again.",2023-07-10 17:47:21,T3chn0Punk,3,NEGATIVE 291,[entfernt],2023-07-10 14:32:15,,-6,POSITIVE 292,"I don’t doubt the capability of ChatGBT now and in the future, but is that something we really want? More automation? Why am I supposed to think this is anything other than a bad idea?",2023-07-10 10:31:57,Subterania,2,NEGATIVE 293,"The ""AI"" is a narrow band search criteria acculmulator, it's a bit like the vaccuum cleaner bot that people use, it's not ""learning"" anything, its able to follow programmed instructions and complete a task based on that. The AI bots aren't ""creating"" anything, they are scouring information off the web and presenting it in preformulated structures, they are just performing a computing task, not thinking. Sarah is correct, what AI creators are making is a system that allows a computer with high processing capability the functionality to take other peoples work and modify it to be presented as a new ""thought"" or ""answer"", the media are spouting all this bullshit that these systems are intelligent, they aren't they are just scraping the web, copy and pasting and plagarising stuff thats already there. If you asked GPT to make a joke in the style of Sarah about squirrels hiding nuts in cars, it will know to add her name into its engine and look for her work.",2023-07-10 11:08:22,Arkslippy,-18,NEGATIVE 294,"> you are not creating anything, your interpretation of the world is just different So what is art if not creation based on experience? Maybe you mean not creating anything *new*?",2023-07-10 10:27:21,zollandd,11,NEGATIVE 295,That is an interesting point. Seems like “the friend” is in the wrong. I’m sure there is more to the story though.,2023-07-11 07:21:10,chadmuffin,1,NEGATIVE 296,"> Can it stop forest fires and climate change? Yes, absolutely. PG&E is using cameras analyzed by both human and AI algorithms to [detect wildfires by signs of smoke](https://krcrtv.com/news/local/pge-expands-wildfire-detection-cameras-in-bid-to-mitigate-wildfires) so firefighters can quickly respond. There are numerous uses of AI for climate change from construction companies, auto makers etc using it to make more carbon efficient products to NASA using AI to model impact so we have more information on how to mitigate disasters.",2023-07-10 16:47:30,rukqoa,4,POSITIVE 297,A training set is just a reading list. What is the legal case for these being different?,2023-07-10 16:28:45,SgathTriallair,3,NEGATIVE 298,"They are done by different means, but they represent a similar scope. A text or a picture that doesn't immediately seem like a copy of a specific pre-existing one, either has to count as an original work, or if we open up the law to it being less than 0.0000001% influenced by data counting as illegal copying, then no human Fair Use is safe either.",2023-07-10 12:21:18,Genoscythe_,6,NEGATIVE 299,Why on earth would they need consent or compensation?,2023-07-10 14:30:22,timschwartz,2,NEGATIVE 300,"What is the difference, exactly?",2023-07-10 20:38:10,EightsidedHexagon,1,NEGATIVE 301,So they could sue the pile,2023-07-10 18:18:57,SgathTriallair,1,NEGATIVE 302,"But isn't that an issue with the training methodology (being oversupplied with duplicate content), rather than the base concept of AI training? The issue people have with Open AI seems to be more with the latter, than the former. They don't like their work being used at all, rather than complaining that their work is being too closely duplicated by the technology.",2023-07-10 17:13:06,Halfwise2,2,NEGATIVE 303,"When chat GPT first came out I said it was going to revolutionize and destroy the writing industry and I got a ton I hate for it. Well 8 months later here we are. You still need creative and good ideas a lot of people have those",2023-07-10 19:27:56,sigmatrophic,1,POSITIVE 304,"I just think the whole copyright shenanigans is way over blown and it's already dead. Artificial intelligence can mimic intent and many artists probably do the same thing. Turns out robots are probably going to become better at manipulating people's emotions and people are and a lot of people's jobs are based on that. I find that hilariously ironic as doing menial labor jobs actually harder for robots to do.",2023-07-10 15:23:40,sigmatrophic,-2,NEGATIVE 305,">For me it's about a company profiteering of of someone's work and not paying the original authors. Then you should think twice before siding with the argument that is for more broad and powerful rights to IP that has been historically empowering corporate IP ownership, to stifle individual artists. Whatever your philosophical positions are on art requiring intent, copyright law doesn't make that distinction, it either approves tiny degrees of copying used within derivatives by new artists, or it doesn't. There is no legally coherent way to argue that if a machine-written text that has factored your own writings' statistical properties into a model into an infinitesimal degree next to trillions of words of other writings, is putting out new texts, those are stolen from you, without setting up the legal precedent that every time you are quoting 0.01% of someone else's book (about the length of a sentence), in your own writing, you are committing a far greater copyright infringement.",2023-07-10 21:19:34,Genoscythe_,1,NEGATIVE 306,"Books at the library are free **to use**, but they bought all those copies and the terms are... above my pay grade. Not that it matters, even if you bought the books you don't then get to rip people off. But they didn't even do that! They stole the books then fed them into their program to make money off them. And anyway, Plagiarism is absolutely a thing people go to court over all the time, look it up. You might get away with stealing one or two very general jokes, but if you rip off someone's whole book don't be surprised if you see some consequences.",2023-07-10 12:51:18,Vegan_Harvest,11,NEGATIVE 307,You know how libraries work right?,2023-07-10 12:54:52,,7,POSITIVE 308,"You can go to the library and read her book for free, but should you be able to go to the library and scan the books there into a database or program that you then use for some purpose that profits you? Can you scan pages of her book then tie-dye them and turn them into prints that you sell?",2023-07-10 13:03:36,sunnbeta,2,NEGATIVE 309,"i am hoping she loses, she is a horrible person in acting and in real life",2023-07-10 18:03:25,2manyLazers,1,NEGATIVE 310,"I missed seeing that. ""The Pile"" apparently has 5 datasets that are not public domain, and two of those are largely copyrighted works. They even discuss the legal implications in that arxiv paper, but claim that they are just following in the steps of other AI researchers.",2023-07-10 16:08:44,xugan97,0,NEGATIVE 311,"Correct, back in 2013 Florida accidentally made the internet illegal.",2023-07-10 15:41:19,FranklynTheTanklyn,2,POSITIVE 312,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 21:59:41,,1,POSITIVE 313,When she wasn't afraid to be offensive so probably about 14 or so years ago back when she had her own show.,2023-07-10 22:22:46,Kills_Alone,1,POSITIVE 314,"""Robot apologists""",2023-07-10 22:08:45,Melkutus,3,NEGATIVE 315,Robot apologists … hahaha we are living in the future,2023-07-10 10:40:45,Desperate_Ad2998,10,NEGATIVE 316,What is there to apologize for? Do you not think that AI research is more important than copyright law?,2023-07-10 22:36:09,obama_is_back,2,POSITIVE 317,"For one thing Sarah Silverman is not a real author, she wrote a book. We're not talking about an English major here where her sole income is coming from writing books. I personally wouldn't download her book or take a free copy for that matter. Second, the majority of people using these links to download books are in most cases not able to afford all the books they're reading. Society hasn't turned to downloading books like they have music in all of these years of torrent use. In fact, I would say the majority of books being downloaded off of these torrents are textbooks for students that are insanely marked up in price. And if they were actually downloading such a high number of books where it was an actual problem, good. At least that sounds like a progression in society. Lastly, I never said authors should not be paid. They'll always have the people that have money to pay for them.",2023-07-11 11:06:46,NaiiaN6,1,NEGATIVE 318,"Microsoft is the majoritary stake holder. Even if the name says Openai, the company is owned by Microsoft.",2023-07-10 19:49:02,Zeioth,1,POSITIVE 319,"Yeah, which is not what happened in this case.",2023-07-11 05:16:50,Donbrands,1,NEGATIVE 320,this is nonsense.,2023-07-11 09:29:03,sebmojo99,1,NEGATIVE 321,"> AI can't produce anything. That literally makes no sense - combinations of things are something a computer can make, it might not be creatIVE, but it can create (as in generate something that didn't exist before). > Of which are copy written. On its own sounds like a strong point - but makes less sense in any country where copyright is automatic - that is, a work that is eligible is considered copyrighted when put in a tangible form. It doesn't make sense because to act like copyright STATUS is the problem would also condemn training on works under creative commons licenses, or where the creator gave permission, since those are still copyrighted works. > Everything created by AI is plagiarism. That's not how plagiarism works. To take someone else's work or thoughs and pass them off as your own, that's not how this works - the way a person USING it can arguably be plagiarism though (I'd agree there).",2023-07-11 18:23:35,travelsonic,1,NEGATIVE 322,I think this is the most relevant distinction in cases like this.,2023-07-11 01:48:13,Kell08,17,POSITIVE 323,"Valve is just putting out a blanket statement that AI-generated games will be banned from the store, which allows them an easy excuse for banning something without needing to get into details. Part of that is Valve protecting themselves but mostly it is just optics.",2023-07-10 23:05:46,NorthernerWuwu,4,NEGATIVE 324,"Correction, valve is banning games that say they're made with AI. They have no reliable way to prove whether it is or not. AI doesn't learn in any way discernable from humans apart from not forgetting Edit: also, Valve doing something that helps their own business proves 0 about the legality of something. Valve's entire husiness is selling IP. If IP is worthless, Valve ceases to exist.",2023-07-10 21:03:21,IShowerinSunglasses,2,NEGATIVE 325,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 21:30:11,,-5,POSITIVE 326,"There was a time when I thought coding meant typing out prompts on a line by line basis. Then I dated an engineer and realized ctrl-c / ctrl-v are pretty much all it takes to write software",2023-07-10 23:15:09,Yabutsk,-5,NEGATIVE 327,"But there is no such thing as original thought. Ultimately, every piece of art created today is an amalgamation of art consumed by that individual or group",2023-07-11 12:09:41,yungchow,1,POSITIVE 328,This is what most people aren't understanding. It's the training that is infringing. There's a literal copy made of expressive work that the machine needs to train on.,2023-07-10 23:31:19,DizzyFrogHS,32,NEGATIVE 329,"We'll see what the court decides, but that shouldn't impact any of the tests courts have created to determine whether or not something breaks copyright law. It's interesting, I just doubt it actually determines the case. I don't think there's a way to measure theoretical further breaches of a license by what a machine has learned. Who know, maybe they even develop new tests to determine whether or not something breaks copyright. Definitely a slippery slope, though. If you make copyright laws too narrow, they don't protect anything anymore.",2023-07-10 23:22:51,IShowerinSunglasses,-1,NEGATIVE 330,"I came here to say your last point. I work full time as an illustrator/designer (and I use a lot of assets that other people make) and my partner is a full time jazz musician (who plays a lot of standards written by other musicians). We absolutely have to pay whoever retains the copyright to use their work, even if it’s altered significantly. My partner has to pay Herbie Hancock to put an arrangement of Toys on his new album, even though it sounds completely different. I pay for a stock photo subscription and if I ripped those stock photos without paying, I would 100% be at risk for a lawsuit. Adobe is doing this the right way - their AI algorithm pulls from their stock archives. That means that every single image their algorithm feeds off of is something that someone got paid for, plus they agreed via contract that their assets can be used for commercial use without credit. No copyright infringement and people get paid for their work. Easy solution to make AI a viable and ethical tool.",2023-07-11 00:43:35,frogtown98,26,POSITIVE 331,"There are a bunch of tests created by courts to prove whether or not something infringes on IP. It has nothing to with the input, if you could even prove what was input. I can look at the code of every game every made, that wouldn't affect whether or not me then programming a game using what was learned is violating copyright law. If you outright said, ""I've programmed X game by reading the code of Y game"" it wouldn't impact the outcome of a copyright case. It would still have to pass the tests of similarity.",2023-07-10 22:26:43,IShowerinSunglasses,8,NEGATIVE 332,"Feeding music into AI does not mean copying it into memory. E.g. dalle-2 contains basically the whole domain of human visual knowledge despite being only 2 gigabytes. When today's AI systems are trained on some input, what happens is that some numbers are adjusted inside the model to make the predicted next token more closely match the next token in the input. If this is done thousands of times for a single piece of music then the AI 'knows' that piece pretty well. However, other training data can influence this knowledge. So, AI systems today have sporadic knowledge: due to the fixed size of the models they can necessarily only remember x number of details. Their knowledge is also affected by other things they have learned. This seems a lot like a human to me. How can a human remember a song if some representation of the song does not exist in their mind? I do think there is justification for legal action if they take the angle that OpenAI got training data illegally (e.g. from unlicenced text repositories containing copyrighted material).",2023-07-10 22:18:07,obama_is_back,9,NEGATIVE 333,That is one of the most incorrect statements of the law I have ever read.,2023-07-10 23:36:32,Saint_Judas,2,NEGATIVE 334,"OpenAI might be subject to the same very small penalties anyone would be subject to for pirating a book, but the idea that the summary the program generates is based on the full text of the book is just incorrect. The AI program writes a summary based on a statistical analysis of thousands of other summaries of the book. These programs don’t “think” and can’t analyze a text. They just use math to predict the most likely next word, basically like autosuggest in iMessage but better.",2023-07-11 04:08:56,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 335,"> Feeding the music data to an AI means copying it into computer memory unchanged so it can create derivative works IMO though, to go from the first part to the last, you need to look deeper into what is going on - which is why one cannot discount the programming/programmer perspective, especially if one wants to prove that the first point leads to the last.",2023-07-11 18:31:58,travelsonic,1,NEGATIVE 336,"Surely, it it was regurgitating copyrighted shit, people would be able to prove it instead of everyone posturing about it on reddit. People have asked it for parts of books and it's just hallucinated out stuff that is not the book.",2023-07-11 02:57:24,FireLucid,3,NEGATIVE 337,"I thought Napster was centralized, as opposed to decentralized like Gokster, Kazaa, etc - which helped keep the latter 2 not liable for infringement unlike Napster, maybe I am misremembering?",2023-07-11 18:26:23,travelsonic,1,NEGATIVE 338,I am aware. Read the article though,2023-07-10 19:50:23,ald_loop,1,POSITIVE 339,I’m not saying it’s hard to use but it’s not as user friendly as Apple Music where I just type song and click play. Or Alexa where I just yell at it to play stuff and it does.,2023-07-11 18:45:08,dabadeedee,1,NEGATIVE 340,"I don’t know. ChatGPT seems unable to actually provide the book. In fact if you ask for a transcription of the book it’s more likely to give you a hallucination than the actual book, so due to its current limitations they might have some protection.",2023-07-10 18:44:17,LupusDeusMagnus,34,NEGATIVE 341,"> Do millions of fair uses, which combined mean sampling the entire work many times over for profit add up to copyright infringement? The existence of search engines has determined that no, it doesn't.",2023-07-10 18:20:20,xternal7,11,NEGATIVE 342,"Technically pieces of this tech have been scattered across for a while now. Chatgpt just became one product being able to put it all together efficiently so all market gravitated to it. Sampling across same artist work/same product has existed for a while now. Tons of writers, musicians, painters draw inspiration from a select few pieces of work. Probably DJs out there who remix some albums/songs repeatedly. If only req for lawsuit is success in a given direction, future of creativity is kinda doomed.",2023-07-10 23:13:26,sandsurfngbomber,0,POSITIVE 343,">Do millions of fair uses, which combined mean sampling the entire work many times You are legally allowed to ""Take Notes"" in written copyright. But if those ""Notes"" amount to a ""Copy"" of the original work, you have violated the owners Right to Make Copies (ie. copyright). So if it's the entire work then yes. It's not the entire work but incredibly close then maybe. Depends on the judge and how the lawyers argue the case.",2023-07-10 20:59:50,CMHenny,0,POSITIVE 344,AI programs don’t use the book to write a summary. They use other summaries written by humans.,2023-07-11 04:00:13,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 345,AI replaces the original. Search displaying snippets does not.,2023-07-10 23:44:29,DizzyFrogHS,-3,NEGATIVE 346,"No, because in that case, the library has purchased a copy of the book. This suit is arguing the book’s contents were accessed through illicit means (shadow libraries) so the author was never compensated.",2023-07-10 17:08:00,HangOnTilTomorrow,31,NEGATIVE 347,"Copyright holders dream of nothing more than saying armed men to libraries to immediately open fire, quipping ""*Memory's illegal, fucko*""",2023-07-10 22:01:15,RetPala,1,NEGATIVE 348,Only because the library paid for it,2023-07-10 19:03:47,lilbluehair,6,NEGATIVE 349,"There is an extensive body of law about why that is fair use (and there are bounds regarding how much of the text you can include in your review). The same is not the case for uses in large language models. Until the various cases make their way through the courts (the US Supreme Court will likely have to weigh in) and/or we get new legislation, the exact scope of whats permissible wont be known.",2023-07-10 20:48:55,TheMostAnon,0,NEGATIVE 350,Don't bother. The people saying this dumb shit about copyright don't understand how the models work and they don't care to learn. I've had that argument too many times.,2023-07-10 20:06:00,MaterialistSkeptic,7,NEGATIVE 351,"Why would you read the article when you could just make an unqualified statement about what you think the lawsuit is about? This is a subreddit for books, not one for reading or literacy",2023-07-10 15:35:27,non_avian,228,NEGATIVE 352,"They are separate lawsuits, and the ChatGPT lawsuit is the one alleging summarization as infringement, when ChatGPT was not trained on the actual underlying books insofar as has been made public. I doubt they will win that lawsuit. LLaMa is where they are alleging ThePile was used, and even there it isn't clear that the copyrighted works were included in the actual training dataset as it is possible to subset ThePile to exclude datasets that are not suitable for the end user's purposes. Ultimately, I think all of these lawsuits will fail on the simple basis that there are no substantive damages to the copyright holders. There are three separate alleged sources of harm here. First, the reproduction of the text in the AI's output without proper attribution. Second, the use of an unlicensed copy of the text to train the LLM. Third, unjust enricment. No one is substituting an AI summary of Sarah Silverman's book for a purchase of the book, so she hasn't been deprived of any sales by its existence. Any summary that contains some similar language likely falls under fair use. As would similar but not identical language appearing in response to wholly unrelated prompts. Jeff Foxworthy owns the copyright to his specific jokes, not to the ""As a redneck..."" joke format. Lack of attribution is unlikely to represent any real harm considering the summary is produced in response to a user prompt, and the user certainly knows what work they are asking for a summary of and therefore does not need to be notified of the underlying copyright information. On the training end of things, she was deprived of the sale of a single book to provide the training text. Meaning she has been deprived of the value of one book sale, which is likely pennies to her and a few dollars to her publisher. So barring a class action, even a victorious lawsuit isn't likely to pose much risk to Meta. And even a class action under that theory wouldn't really matter much. There are something like 200k books in Bibliotik, and assuming $20 damages per book, Meta may owe around $4m in a class action if it is joined by literally every single author, which seems unlikely. That is certainly de minimis for the scales at which Meta operates. The only effects of such a ruling would be to improve the incomes of some authors by a truly minimal amount (even a few hundred companies using these datasets and paying for them would only be a few dollars to each author) and to deny the use of Bibliotik and similar datasets for use by smaller companies that can't afford such a large payout, adding yet another finger on the scale in favor of large companies dominating the future of AI. Unjust enrichment requires that the defendant have been (1) enriched (2) at the plaintiff's expense (3) unjustly. Meaning, the defendant must have gained a benefit in an unjust manner that resulted in a corresponding loss to the plaintiff. It is not clear how the LLMs have resulted in enrichment of the defendants in any way that relates to a harm to the plaintiffs. The paid services provided by the defendants which are enabled by LLMs are not in any way substitutes for the works of the plaintiffs. There is nothing unjust about providing summaries as summaries are fair use under established law. To the extent that the defendants are enriched by the opportunity to train their models on the copyrighted text completely separately from then using those models to provide paid services, then the damages are equivalent to a single license for the text, as discussed above. The only way this lawsuit succeeds really is if they can claim that an AI ""reading"" their book requires a different kind of license than the general license that comes along with a regular purchase of their book and for which they would charge a substantially greater sum than they would for a regular purchase, despite the fact that the existing licenses for the books at the time of training did not prohibit such use. That seems like an impossible hair to split, because there is no clear technical means to distinguish between my Kindle scanning the text of a book to let me search that text and a different program scanning the text to produce a corpus for training an LLM. That distinction will only become more blurred over time as more and more AI products are integrated into various applications. E.g., imagine if you have an LLM personal assistant that is integrated with your eBook reader so that it can provide a fuzzy search capability for you to answer questions like ""What was I reading recently that talked about the dangers of unregulated AI for producing disinformation?"". This analysis is especially true for any existing licenses which do not explicitly prohibit use for LLM training, although the result may be marginally less clear if a training set is produced from newer licensed works that do explicitly prohibit such use (an issue which is not at stake in the current suit, but which would probably not affect the analysis really, simply because of the difficult in technically distinguishing between regular uses and LLM-training uses). All of these arguments are exactly the same as the arguments which saved Google Books when it was sued for hosting freely accessible partial excerpts of books, so the plaintiffs have a huge hill to climb here. What's most screwed up about this lawsuit is that the authors aren't even suing for what they perceive to be the real harm, which is not that they have lost sales to LLMs but rather the possibility that AI may compete with them as writers and thus make it impossible to earn a living writing. Which is a concern far beyond the scope of copyright law, simply because AI capable of competing with Sarah Silvermann can be produced without using her or anyone else's copyrighted works as part of the training set. Even if it weren't beyond the scope of copyright law altogether, it is a concern which cannot be addressed by enforcing copyright law in the manner that the plaintiff's are requesting here, because LLMs can be trained on open source data anyway and will eventually be improved to the point that any copyrighted texts excluded from their training sets won't detract from the quality of their output. Not to mention it's a classic example of a Luddite fallacy. The role of many authors in the future is likely to transition from production of text to careful curation or editing of text generated by an AI, with a limited subset of authors engaged in traditional writing. Much as the automated loom replaced the labor of many women manually knitting cloth in their homes by hand for the vast majority of cloth produced, while hand-knitting instead evolved into a niche artisanal hobby.",2023-07-11 00:12:24,stult,2,NEGATIVE 353,"Sorry, i was corrected by someone else. Sarah has to prove that any use of her work is not fair use, not that the books exist as part of the training data. Though it would be hilarious if Sarah's book was not used in the training data at all, that's not really what the lawsuit is about. But i do appreciate you pointing out that one of them has admitted to possibly committing some kind of IP theft.",2023-07-10 16:06:43,Lallo-the-Long,4,NEGATIVE 354,But the program doesn’t write a summary by referring to the actual book. It writes the summary based on other summaries.,2023-07-11 04:02:37,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 355,Why would they train their AI using the contents of a private tracker? That's just beyond stupid.,2023-07-11 05:21:45,the-arcanist---,1,NEGATIVE 356,And they do admit to accessing a site where her work was illegally hosted,2023-07-10 17:08:52,tgrantt,20,NEGATIVE 357,That's a fair correction of what i said.,2023-07-10 16:02:02,Lallo-the-Long,2,NEGATIVE 358,"> Like that's just a matter of fact: they either did or did not use the book during training, they know the answer, they need to provide Doesn't that go against the basic principle of self incrimination? I thought that a person accused of a crime never has to say or do anything, that it's up to the accuser/prosecution to provide proof of a crime.",2023-07-10 19:45:36,leftcoast-usa,2,NEGATIVE 359,It doesn't know how it works.,2023-07-10 14:16:51,amplifizzle,51,NEGATIVE 360,Enough pieces of what? Like if it reads a few dozen summaries that quote a couple of lines each that should be considered copyright infringement?,2023-07-10 14:42:25,Lallo-the-Long,6,NEGATIVE 361,"Especially when a lot of prompts that people use are in the vein of ""write the text like x would have.""",2023-07-10 15:46:49,Gross_Success,21,NEGATIVE 362,"Maybe im stupid but I don;t get how they can make them ""pay a substantial amount of money to gain access to those books"". Surely the most that can be charged is the cost of a single book?",2023-07-10 18:58:58,kkraww,7,NEGATIVE 363,"> I don't think this is about one book and its summary Though they can get $150k for that under 17 U.S. Code § 504.",2023-07-10 16:58:15,dank_the_enforcer,0,NEGATIVE 364,"The problem is then what is open for models to be trained on, pretty sure anyone who posts on the internet with the interest of making ad revenue doesn't want their content used in training llms either if it kills traffic on their site. So all of a sudden llms can't be trained on vast amount of human knowledge. Sure one could place checks to stop it from rewriting something verbatim but pretty sure they will just add a step to write around the legal boundary, since producing an answer is the ultimate goal. Not taking any sides but very few people produce long form organised information sources and give it out without hoping to make any money form it. So what will really be available for training language models. The value they can provide to people is immense and the necessity to pay everyone for the data would kill the development. And obviously we don't want them to right incorrect answers all the time.",2023-07-10 18:57:36,Mkboii,0,NEGATIVE 365,But the program doesn’t need access to a book to write summary. It writes the summary based on other freely available summaries. The lawsuit is based on a misunderstanding of how these programs work.,2023-07-11 04:19:32,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 366,"By posting on this website, you absolutely gave consent. Read the user agreement.",2023-07-10 18:58:42,Jiggawatz,2,POSITIVE 367,">Here is whether the access to the books was illegally or not. The source of the initial data fed to the AI is one potential copyright violation. But if the AI keeps access to that database in order to make derivative works, then that is potentially a second kind of violation that is like commercial fan fiction. We already know that the AI will produce a detailed summary when asked which might already be a violation. Any continued use of that copyrighted work could be additional violations.",2023-07-10 20:47:47,CleverNickName-69,-1,NEGATIVE 368,"This isn't about fan fiction, it's about how copyright works. You don't lose it by overlooking violatons.",2023-07-10 21:50:51,TheLurkingMenace,-2,NEGATIVE 369,Good point. They should use a library instead. Much cheaper,2023-07-10 19:25:14,Spider_pig448,1,NEGATIVE 370,It definitely exists. Even before chatgpt it was not uncommon in corporate contracts for ML services to negotiate whether client data could be used for training. You can also just straight up buy and sell data sets for training.,2023-07-11 00:46:25,user2196,3,POSITIVE 371,"Can't exist until the market for it exists. As soon as AI existed, then it did.",2023-07-10 23:49:01,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 372,Well I was on the side of following the law but then you said it would make things difficult for a handful of companies to make profit so let’s just throw away all the laws.,2023-07-10 15:17:03,AsAGayJewishDemocrat,42,NEGATIVE 373,What a shame.,2023-07-10 15:22:33,KeenJelly,4,NEGATIVE 374,These are multibillion dollar companies that is going to make more billions on their tech. Paying for the material is the least they could do.,2023-07-10 15:51:13,Gross_Success,6,NEGATIVE 375,"Don't steal. Information, in any format, whether it's a full volume of work, an article from a journal, a monographic series, audio recording or video recording, etc., used to train any of the AI without permission is theft of copyright .",2023-07-10 15:26:32,jonnysunshine,-5,NEGATIVE 376,This dude is a Russian troll.,2023-07-10 15:17:19,beardedheathen,5,NEGATIVE 377,"> This is already not illegal though. But that's also not what they lawsuit is about, it's about the laws they broke before summarizing the book.",2023-07-10 17:00:21,dank_the_enforcer,10,NEGATIVE 378,How do you read a book through a wiki?,2023-07-10 15:39:17,non_avian,3,NEGATIVE 379,"That's the fun part about US law. You can bring a civil suit about whatever ridiculous nonsense you want and even if it obviously has no grounds to *win* you still get to plead your case! But seriously, there's no way this goes anywhere. At best it's a PR move or some sort of advocacy stunt, at worst it's a cash grab and she's hoping for a settlement",2023-07-10 14:33:55,Mindestiny,4,NEGATIVE 380,Would a consequence of this be that any kind summarisation of a copyrighted work would be an infringement of said copyright? It seems like a ruling on something like this has the potential to have far reaching implications outside of the context of AI.,2023-07-10 13:25:22,GeneralMuffins,15,NEGATIVE 381,"> I'm not saying they did but piracy is not the only option. Correct. Though in this case, that's exactly what they did.",2023-07-10 17:03:23,dank_the_enforcer,7,NEGATIVE 382,"The complainants are trying to prove they did pirate the books. If it about tens of thousands of books, it is harder to lie reliably. But yes, there are many options - OpenAI can even say ""we don't know"" and get away.",2023-07-10 13:41:14,xugan97,3,NEGATIVE 383,">but piracy is not the only option Even if you buy or check out an e-book, you still don't have license to copy that text into a database for an AI. You can say the AI is just 'reading' the book, but I think you're still making an unauthorized copy.",2023-07-10 22:27:11,CleverNickName-69,0,NEGATIVE 384,"> Your understanding of machine learning and AI is pseudoscientific this is actually true of yourself. especially saying that in reference to the post you're replying to. sincerely a multidecade ai researcher and expert.",2023-07-10 17:32:43,BeeOk1235,0,POSITIVE 385,"That's 100% incorrect. Copyright does not prevent you from analysing, studying, observing, etc, other's works. It prevents you from making unauthorized copies.",2023-07-10 14:04:46,AnOnlineHandle,13,NEGATIVE 386,"While copyright does protect against unauthorised copying and distribution of original works, it does not prevent learning or gaining inspiration from the ideas or concepts contained within these works. So, your assertion that copyright protects against observation, measurement, and learning is not accurate.",2023-07-10 13:30:41,GeneralMuffins,3,NEGATIVE 387,"> Copyright law is already an absolute mess It's not though. That case was a travesty, because copyright law wasn't followed. In my opinion, it wasn't followed, because neither the judge nor the jury understood the law, nor did they understand music. It should never have gone before a jury of laypeople. But that was the only way it was going to be successful.",2023-07-10 17:08:15,dank_the_enforcer,2,NEGATIVE 388,"Sure, my example is silly because it only points out the similarity in the words - But your example doesn’t hold because you’re only transforming the medium - GPT transforms the content.",2023-07-10 14:09:28,canadianmatt,3,NEGATIVE 389,Can you write a summary of a collection of summaries you've read about the book without negotiating rights?,2023-07-10 14:01:23,Lallo-the-Long,2,NEGATIVE 390,"A direct transformation from a book into a movie involves taking the specific elements of the book (characters, plot, settings, etc.) and adapting them into a different medium. This adaptation is directly based on the copyrighted work and carries over specific, identifiable elements of it. In copyright terms, this is creating a ""derivative work"", which is a right reserved for the copyright holder. In contrast, when a pre-trained model like ChatGPT includes a copyrighted book in its training data, it does not ""remember"" or directly reproduce specific content from the book. Instead, the model learns patterns and structures from the entire dataset and generates completely new content based on those learned patterns. The output does not contain direct, identifiable elements from the copyrighted work, making it a fundamentally different process from creating a direct adaptation.",2023-07-10 13:44:58,GeneralMuffins,-2,NEGATIVE 391,Neither method is fair use.,2023-07-10 22:03:30,Kai-ni,1,NEGATIVE 392,">The only thing keeping AI learning from being open and shut copyright infringement is obfuscation. If you take out all the layers of algorithm and look at the flow chart you are left with ""take copy of copyrighted material"" be that book or web article, or anything, ""and store a full copy of it in memory to reference when needed."" Because that's simply NOT how LLM training works. I don't have the numbers for GPT at hand, but to give an example, LAION-5B was trained on over 5 billion text-image pairs with 512x512 images, over 240 TB size, and the resulting Stable Diffusion model is something that you can download on your own desktop computer in a few gigabytes and generate images while offline. If it would be storing the training model you would either need to compress each image to less than a pixel's bitmap value, or need a room full of hard drives to store them. The idea that LLMs store a full copy of the absurdly large amounts of data that they were trained on, is just plainly not true on it's face. Even if you were to refuse to take any of the more complex explanations from experts at face value, this is something you can verify for yourself with a basic user level of IT comprehension.",2023-07-11 11:06:25,Genoscythe_,4,NEGATIVE 393,Please do not link to piracy sites. Use screenshots if necessary.,2023-07-11 20:12:46,CrazyCatLady108,1,NEGATIVE 394,">(I didn't think of it but multiple copies are necessarily made in the process of fetching an e-book from the Web, storing it on disk, reading it back into memory for processing, etc). Honestly, though, the courts misstepped when they said this kind of copying was a problem, so maybe this is an opportunity to fix that.",2023-07-11 02:53:55,Aaron_Hamm,1,NEGATIVE 395,"although wouldn't it be different for ""commercial"" use. That'd be a bit like saying you only owe an author the cost of a single book if you make a movie from their book",2023-07-10 11:29:56,dr_merkwerdigliebe,50,NEGATIVE 396,">There is no legal need for licencing works for this use, since until very recently this use did not exist and thus laws for this haven't been passed. It seems to me that, regardless of the pretext of damages, the actual intent of this lawsuit is to highlight the need for far stricter and more nuanced legislation around AI learning models.",2023-07-10 14:32:14,Mtbnz,11,NEGATIVE 397,"The part where it can guess with very high accuracy based on data it used for training is the issue. If you can create new works that mimic someone's work with a very high degree of accuracy, could and should be a valid reason to sue. It can degrade the value of the original creator's work, restrict future revenue by creating confusion where almost identical works in the sense of style and ""feel"" become available with little effort on the part of the person using Chatgpt to create such alternate work. AI should be able to use available material for training, but if it can create based on a mathematical model a product that mimics an artist, then either it should be restricted from doing so or be liable for copyright or even be required to pay a license to the author.",2023-07-10 12:06:49,MindTheGapless,6,NEGATIVE 398,"I suppose that is a way that the court case could shake out. For clarity, the AI's data set, as I understand its use as a term in the article and the case, is meant to be the training data that was used for the AI to model, not that the AI is actively cutting snippets from a current library and editing them on the fly. The suit's claim is that the inclusion of these works in the dataset is a copyright violation and that its illegal use gives the plaintiffs the right to ask for reparations. The core of the suit and its resolution is deciding if this is a fair use of the works, and if not, what that entitles the plaintiffs to collect as damages.",2023-07-10 16:41:46,Kants_Pupil,1,NEGATIVE 399,">The books are not in its dataset. That's not how language models work. They don't store a copy of every single text used for training OpenAI does store books as their datasets, we know that Chatgpt 3 was trained on what were termed datasets Book1 and Book2, I don't think anyone knows exactly what is in them but it's been suspected for a long time that Book2 was basically a copy of books from libgen and you can get it to go so in depth on copyrighted work if you wish that there is absolutely no way that it read a summary to get some of the details that it does. ​ \>at most OpenAI owes them payment on single e-book copies of their books used during the training of the program ​ That's not how statutory damages work.",2023-07-10 16:21:35,HalfLifeII,0,NEGATIVE 400,"GPT doesn’t search though, and its dataset only goes through 2021, I believe. So everything it knows, it’s been “fed”",2023-07-10 13:24:14,person144,24,NEGATIVE 401,That's going to be exactly what the trial is about,2023-07-10 14:28:25,Mtbnz,2,POSITIVE 402,"This is kind of the core question of the case. I understand that there may be reasons that it is able without holding the relevant texts in their entirety, but the authors alleged the AI has the books within its data set. The article elaborates by saying that they believe that the AI was trained, in part, using unauthorized copies of the books in the case. From the article: >The suits alleges, among other things, that OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Meta’s LLaMA were trained on illegally-acquired datasets containing their works, which they say were acquired from “shadow library” websites like Bibliotik, Library Genesis, Z-Library, and others, noting the books are “available in bulk via torrent systems.” Edit: attempted to fix formatting.",2023-07-10 16:23:25,Kants_Pupil,0,NEGATIVE 403,"> Finding any content related to the said book on the internet (including the Amazon listing and Goodreads reviews) is enough for the model to generate relevant text. In theory, sure. OpenAI is going to argue that they need the whole book. And in this case, if you read the article/suit, they pirated the book to get it.",2023-07-10 17:10:14,dank_the_enforcer,1,NEGATIVE 404,those are also cases of infringement.,2023-07-10 17:34:31,BeeOk1235,1,NEGATIVE 405,">in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together from “a copy of the contents of the Bibliotik private tracker.” Bibliotik and the other “shadow libraries” listed, says the lawsuit, are “flagrantly illegal.” From the article. It had access to illegal libraries.",2023-07-10 21:56:50,The_Kurrgan_Shuffle,1,NEGATIVE 406,The problem is fundamental to how AI works: it is a data base. the argument is that the creator of the AI doesn't have the right to put others' work in the data base to be sold as their own material.,2023-07-10 12:15:18,GeraldBWilsonJr,-32,NEGATIVE 407,"Give us an example of an author writing in the style of another writer. Writing style is what wouldn't be copied. Characters, their names, the plot, names of planets, spaceships, villains, heroes, cities, etc. are things that would be copied, not a writing style. It's like someone writing a children's book about a boy named Larry who was born with magical abilities and got sent to a magical school where hijinks and danger ensues.",2023-07-10 15:54:45,FaerieQueene510,-3,NEGATIVE 408,"For sure, there are other ways for this to be possible, but there's more. According to an internal paper from Meta, LLaMa used a data set that included ThePile, which is an aggregate that uses other sites, here collectively referred to as shadow libraries, which definitely have illegal copies of the works. I was simply responding that they aren't suing over the summary itself, but the alleged unauthorized copying and use of the authors' works to generate the summary.",2023-07-10 16:32:37,Kants_Pupil,5,NEGATIVE 409,"They had two training datasets of books for GPT 3, Book1 and Book2 that were full books, not summaries or internet content. It's long been suspected it's just copies from something like libgen and it's hard to believe that it's not with how much detail it has on some books. You can ask it for page level summaries on some copyrighted books.",2023-07-10 16:28:35,HalfLifeII,5,NEGATIVE 410,"It's so frustrating that you were downvoted. People are actively downvoting anybody in this thread who actually understands how machine learning works. Pseudoscientific takes are being upvoted and is preferred on reddit now. These people would probably eagerly upvote people who say vaccines contain microchips if they hadn't been beat over the head with how stupid that was for years.",2023-07-10 14:12:49,AnOnlineHandle,15,NEGATIVE 411,"It is, however, a Reasonable Allegation that justifies discovery. We’ll get the facts in Discovery.",2023-07-10 21:55:41,AndrewJamesDrake,0,POSITIVE 412,"That's doesn't prove the original text is in there. I can write something in the style of Robert Jordan, and summarize the plot and character arcs of *The Wheel of Time*, but I can't quote any significant amount of the text by memory. I just have a general model in my head of how Jordan writes from reading his 14 doorstoppers multiple times. Language models work similarly. During training the model reinforces the language *patterns* associated with certain tags, like author name. Then that model can be used to do a very fancy version of predictive text on your phone. It starts generating the *kind of language pattern* that author is associated with, but the text itself is no longer available to the model.",2023-07-10 12:22:17,Zalack,15,NEGATIVE 413,"Doesn’t sound like Sarah Silverman, there’s no “cute racism.”",2023-07-10 12:31:27,manimal28,-6,NEGATIVE 414,"Creative people are absolutely losing their shit about AI language models since this is the first time it's possible for their livelihood to be replicated (and replicated very well) by a machine. That's not a genie that can be stuffed back into a bottle - people suing for reasons that amount to, ""I don't know why, but it's just not fair!"" are starting to look silly. Go ask the typists, data entry clerks, telephone operators, assembly line workers, shoemakers, blacksmiths, etc etc etc. how well their complaining about automation worked. ""Well, this is DIFFERENT because these are my personal creative ideas!"" Yeah, your ideas are based on your life & your experiences about what you know. Sorry to break it to you, but the AI is doing exactly the same, but it's got a much larger pool of ""memories"" than humans do. It's undoubtedly an interesting ethical dilemma, but so were [most major technological advances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) at the time of their disruption.",2023-07-10 13:41:26,Jeffbx,8,NEGATIVE 415,"The AI isn't a human though, it's a program that is generating profit by summarizing the book. Its very different than just a human person summarizing a book that they bought ir that they stole.",2023-07-10 13:45:38,plesiadapiform,-3,NEGATIVE 416,"The people pushing for AI are the very people who DON'T want to distribute wealth. I get hating jobs, but siding with Capitalist over Labor is just eating your own face.",2023-07-10 21:21:08,,5,NEGATIVE 417,"> enhanced productivity and wealth distribution so that we all need to work less If you are asking for enhanced wealth distribution, then I agree. However, enhanced productivity produced by technology doesn't necessarily lead to workers working less. It can also lead to workers working more. 24/7 on call at the drop of a text.",2023-07-10 14:22:53,byingling,23,POSITIVE 418,"Your goal is admirable, it will never happen. AI will only result in the consolidation of wealth.",2023-07-10 15:41:03,Diomedes413,9,NEGATIVE 419,"It's not progress. And it's not just saving jobs. It's literally using people's work to ""create"" new work. It's not an actual AI. It's only doing what it is programmed to do. It being called ""AI"" is just corporate bullshit to make people think it's ""creating"" things.",2023-07-10 14:14:57,Gavorn,-5,NEGATIVE 420,"Are you really banking on wealth distributed, jobless societies --> in a world with a pay, wealth, and resource gap as huge as it is right now? <-- Are you in America lol? People can't even get paid a living wage right now. Some they were just calling ""essential workers."" You think a technological innovation that's poised to *replace* labor is going to force that change?",2023-07-10 23:40:42,sitcheeation,1,NEGATIVE 421,What does that have to do with this topic?,2023-07-10 14:15:44,Gavorn,7,POSITIVE 422,"Go on, say the thing about Luddites again.",2023-07-10 14:30:16,Ellsiesaur,-2,POSITIVE 423,"You are so obsessed with the vaccine. Let me guess, your employer ""forced"" you to get it otherwise you wouldn't be able to work? And seeing as how you think yourself so smart in this AI topic of discussion, you should know that evidence makes the argument. So many Americans can continue to parrot each other by saying the vaccines had microchips in them but without evidence to support their claims: IT'S NOT TRUE.",2023-07-10 16:07:26,FaerieQueene510,1,NEGATIVE 424,"""Why make laws when people are just going to break them""",2023-07-10 14:57:34,Gavorn,2,NEGATIVE 425,"True, or auditory. There's a lot of forms it can take, but each of them are still a thing.",2023-07-10 14:01:22,Twokindsofpeople,4,POSITIVE 426,"Hilarious. Not all things are products, but lets ignore that now. This lawsuit explicitly based on the assumption that art is a product. Namely, that Sarah Silverman owns the rights not just to sell her book, but the rights to determine what every line of the art can be contained within. You cannot get more explicit that art is a product than that. If you sell something it's by its very definition a product.",2023-07-10 11:21:06,Twokindsofpeople,17,NEGATIVE 427,If it’s not a product what is it??,2023-07-10 11:35:02,FlyingMute,8,NEGATIVE 428,You’re gatekeeping art,2023-07-10 12:32:44,BushDidSixtyNine11,7,POSITIVE 429,"great response! then this lawsuit should be dismissed because art is not copyrightable, only tangible expressions of art are. https://copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/",2023-07-10 12:02:44,slashrshot,-4,POSITIVE 430,"Something created someone can derive meaning from. To gatekeep the word art is an exercise in futility. It doesn't have to be human made, the religious look at galaxies and atoms and see art from the creator, elephants can paint pictures. It's a nebulous term. You go to a truck stop and show them Jesus submerged in piss and the resounding consensus is it's not art yet in insider circles that's one of the most famous exhibits of the 20th century. That's why being the arbiter of what's art is futile. In the US Legally, and the important aspect when talking legally is who's entitled to the profit from art, art must have a substantial amount of original design and separability meaning if separated from the product will the product continue to function. The latter is excluded from to prevent industrial designs from being considered art. This is practical to allow our society to function, but it is not the answer to a philosophical question of ""what is art"" because seeing the creative leaps it takes to create something like a microchip and saying there was no artistic ability being used is laughable. For example the legal aspects of art only cover visual and fine arts, they do not cover performance art. So unless we're all ready to say performance art not real art then using the legal definition of art is pretty useless. A person can live inside an ice cube for a day yet David Blaine cannot get any money from it despite creating that particular performance. By contrast someone can make the same movie with different actors yet owe the owner of the first film the entirety of their profits. All that's to say that legal the definition of art isn't made to answer any deep questions, it's made to keep money flowing. So to answer your question what is art? A noun someone says is art. Trying to gatekeep and pin down an exclusionary definition will also exclude human creativity.",2023-07-11 01:07:38,Twokindsofpeople,0,NEGATIVE 431,It's not being pretentious when other people are basic as fuck.,2023-07-10 18:46:52,lukewarmpiss,-5,POSITIVE 432,"> But readers want coherent content and LLMs can't yet produce that in long form. Yes they can. > Also, their sentences are dull. They're trained to be dull. It's very easy for an off-the-rails AI to produce... interesting results, like when I got ChatGPT to make an uwuified, ""cute"" description of the Holocaust told using the mannerisms of a stoned late-60s hippie.",2023-07-10 13:18:57,Terrariola,-5,NEGATIVE 433,"People like to feel smart. That's why Andy weir gets so much praise, because they feel like they're reading something for smart people when it's actually crap pandering to the lowest common denominator. I refuse to take suggestions from 99% of the people on this website. The first (and last) time I read something everyone recommended here I just wanted to throw the book at a wall, because it was so unbelievably bad. Also I automatically ignore the opinions from whoever unironically likes Brandon Sanderson",2023-07-10 11:17:40,lukewarmpiss,-14,NEGATIVE 434,"But this thread IS about copyright. It's about suing AI for copyright infringement just because it can paraphrase the summary of a book. In this context, it is absolutely relevant that the LLM itself is copying details from a book ***to the same degree*** as someone who has read it once and remembers vague clusters of ideas from it. In other contexts in might be important that it is not 100% the same process, but bringing up here how AI doesn't have the ""capability of interpretation"" or that it isn't really ""art"" is the take that is a pedantic tangent.",2023-07-10 17:41:59,Genoscythe_,5,NEGATIVE 435,"My dude, reading comprehension. The camera doesn't interpret. The photographer does. Or can I just leave my camera out and it'll do everything for me? Part of my income goes towards supporting local artist exhibitions in my town's museum. I can't say I know the ins and outs of what is and isn't art as you oh so clearly do but I help out how I can because I love it all the same. What we have with AI currently is something of a mess but there's definitely the groundwork for potential. See my other comment on voice recording work.",2023-07-10 18:21:06,Artorias_lives,1,POSITIVE 436,[entfernt],2023-07-10 16:49:19,,0,POSITIVE 437,It reminds me of people complaining about sampling and midi instruments a couple decades ago.,2023-07-10 10:35:43,DrMikeHochburns,30,NEGATIVE 438,"Yes we do. Technology doesn’t stop because it hurts a demographic. Computers destroyed typewriters. Should we not have made computers? Cars destroyed horse drawn carriages. Should we have not made cars, AI is going to also destroy technology it replaces. There is an argument that AI might end up replacing too much, but it doesn’t change the fact that humans have typically not stopped technological advancement. You either adapt or you get run over.",2023-07-10 10:42:04,Hanyabull,56,NEGATIVE 439,"Because making machines do work means humans don't need to do as much work to keep total output the same. The issue is with how the profits from that work are distributed, not with automation.",2023-07-10 11:06:59,Cajum,16,NEGATIVE 440,"automation for menial tasks and work, yes. but for art? no. art is an expression of self. taking away the human element of art makes it meaningless. an AI cannot craft a story in the same way a human can.",2023-07-10 11:58:42,GenericGaming,5,NEGATIVE 441,"To have more slog labor done by machines? Yes, please. > Why am I supposed to think this is anything other than a bad idea? Because it frees people up to do other things. Does your presentation need a splash of art? Would you rather spend five minutes throwing a dozen progressively more tuned phrases into an art machine or try your luck slogging through stock photos, find something that's close enough, only to click through to discover it's paywalled behind a subscription? Did you get stuck refactoring someone else's old code? Would you rather work through their spaghetti logic manually using only clues like ""nameThisVariableBetterLater = Truish"" and ""//this function was a placeholder for a library I was going to write later but isn't anymore"". Or would you rather slap it into a text box and have human readable documentation of what it actually does spat out instantly? AI doesn't eliminate content creators any more than the printing press eliminated calligraphers. It's just another tool in the toolbox.",2023-07-10 10:57:30,xmagusx,3,NEGATIVE 442,gbt hehe,2023-07-10 13:40:54,Sexehexes,-1,POSITIVE 443,"I don't think it is a bad idea, but even if a society became convinced that it was and took measures to protect the status quo, the potential productivity gains from AI are so massive, any society that rejects them will end up being impoverished and backward versus pro-AI cultures. This alone virtually guarantees AI adoption as pro-AI cultures become the super powers and anti-AI societies become, vulnerable, weak, poor and unattractive. The real questions we should be asking is how to adopt AI responsibly in a way that benefits most people.",2023-07-10 17:12:57,Entalstate,1,POSITIVE 444,">they are just scraping the web, copy and pasting and plagarising stuff thats already there. This is literal misinformation. Your ideas on how LLMs works were stolen directly from people who have no experience with or understanding of LLMs >and look for her work. ChatGPT does not have a copy of Sarah Silverman's work stored in a database.",2023-07-10 14:51:31,actionheat,7,NEGATIVE 445,">If you asked GPT to make a joke in the style of Sarah about squirrels hiding nuts in cars, it will know to add her name into its engine and look for her work. That's not how ChatGPT or similar models work, outside of things like Bing's AI that explicitly performs searches in addition to generating responses (even that is just an extra thing above the GPT itself, which still doesn't do what you describe). It doesn't access any external information when generating responses. And it doesn't store any texts or things of that sorts. In simplified manner - it has a numerical representation for each existing word, it processes the given sentence word-by-word by using that numerical representation, multiplying them by weights and adding them together, along some other special functions, and the output is probability of the next word, which it randomly selects. This way, it generates word after word.",2023-07-10 11:25:04,grandoz039,14,NEGATIVE 446,">The ""AI"" is a narrow band search criteria acculmulator, it's a bit like the vaccuum cleaner bot that people use, it's not ""learning"" anything, its able to follow programmed instructions and complete a task based on that But you wouldn't say that just because a roomba is not thinking, it is not *truly* vacuuming your floor, because only intelligent beings can vacuum, so it must be just pretending to. The ridiculous point being made here is not that the AI is unintelligent, but that looking at obviously new texts generated and saying that since they were not generated intelligently, they can't be new texts, so they should be treated as ""copies"" of other text that they don't resemble.",2023-07-10 11:57:55,Genoscythe_,4,NEGATIVE 447,">The AI bots aren't ""creating"" anything, they are scouring information off the web and presenting it in preformulated structures, they are just performing a computing task, not thinking. this critical error in their operation makes you entire comment foolish, you haven't read up on the technology and everything you said is just a personal belief or opinion.",2023-07-12 22:12:49,ninjasaid13,1,NEGATIVE 448,"""Art"" can be many things, including throwaway advertisements. I highly doubt that a majority of ""art"" created, by volume, is about creative expression but instead cold disposable product.",2023-07-10 15:06:45,sapphicsandwich,2,NEGATIVE 449,Those don’t sound like language models though so I think you might be talking about other things.,2023-07-10 18:37:09,MrPookPook,-3,NEGATIVE 450,"Its an algorithm, a tool, created for profit, being trained on data that may be publicly available, but it has no right to put into a data set and work off of. When you create an ML-algorithm in engineering (my field), you create or purchase data sets specifically *made* for it. Training data is created for the purpose of training something. In this case, training data is assembled from everything they can scrape off the internet somewhere, without regard what it is or whom it belongs to. Its not some guy reading something, its a for-profit algorithm being trained on unethically procured data.",2023-07-10 20:10:48,KronosCifer,0,NEGATIVE 451,The book was allegedly illegally obtained,2023-07-10 18:37:16,KillerWattage,1,NEGATIVE 452,For providing training data to an ML-algorithm being trained as a for-profit product.,2023-07-10 20:15:45,KronosCifer,1,NEGATIVE 453,One is a human reading something that was intended for a human to be read. The other is a for-profit machine learning algorithm being trained on data sets scraped from the internet without consent or compensation.,2023-07-10 21:01:02,KronosCifer,-1,NEGATIVE 454,"Yes, LLMs and AGIs would be completely in the clear if they could prove that all of their training was legally obtained and that they can't substantially recreate copyrighted works. If someone stole your bike, you caught them with it, and they then asked to borrow it, would you let them borrow it?",2023-07-10 17:15:32,Letrabottle,5,NEGATIVE 455,"Sure, I agree, but there is a legal coherent way of not allowing companies to use those writings in their models.",2023-07-10 21:27:37,lukewarmpiss,1,NEGATIVE 456,"If you slap your name on Sarah Silverman's book, she can successfully sue you for copyright infringement. If you copy sections verbatim, and don't cite the source you copied from, same. From what I've seen, ChatGPT isn't ""plagiarizing"" anyone. But hey, if she can roll into court with ChatGPT transcripts that match a paragraph or a page of her book, she might have a case. It doesn't sound to me like that's what she has, though.",2023-07-10 13:44:59,anotherlevl,11,NEGATIVE 457,"“They stole the books then fed them into their program” You seem to conceptually misunderstand AI. This is a 5 year olds incorrect take.",2023-07-10 16:48:50,Turbulent-Jump-4884,-2,NEGATIVE 458,">but should you be able to go to the library and scan the books there into a database or program This is what reading is, so yes. >then use for some purpose that profits you? Yes this is called creating a derivative work, for example a youtube video analyzing the book or summarizing the book that through ads give you money. >Can you scan pages of her book then tie-dye them and turn them into prints that you sell? That's not allow and also not what chatgpt is doing.",2023-07-10 13:50:02,Sniter,8,NEGATIVE 459,"But that's not what an AI Language Model does: there is no copy of the book in a database, similar to how there is no copy of the book in your head after reading it.",2023-07-10 13:32:23,_PurpleAlien_,7,NEGATIVE 460,"> They even discuss the legal implications in that arxiv paper, but claim that they are just following in the steps of other AI researchers That's fantastic. ""We might be breaking the law, but we don't want to fall behind over trivial things ethics or legality.""",2023-07-10 16:16:26,snark_attak,3,NEGATIVE 461,I've noticed this among a whole slew of genX celebs. Granted most aren't as bad as SS. But a lot of them are perpetually pissed at young people for not thinking they're 'cool' anymore.,2023-07-10 23:31:02,blancfoolien,1,NEGATIVE 462,Peak reddit,2023-07-10 23:08:54,Shtottle,2,POSITIVE 463,"Robopologist. We need one word to describe them.",2023-07-10 11:03:54,p-d-ball,2,NEGATIVE 464,"no. its owned by a number of stakeholders, microsoft is just one of them. im sure their cap table has 20 companies on it all with different ownership positions.",2023-07-10 19:51:14,saltyshart,2,NEGATIVE 465,yeah. like if i read 100 books then write my own that synthesises and draws from them I haven't breached copyright at all.,2023-07-11 11:30:14,sebmojo99,1,POSITIVE 466,"I'm glad that our legal systems and politicians are willing and able to grasp the sophisticated nuances of complex emerging technologies. Can you imagine what a shitshow it would be if they were venal intellectual cripples who were only interested in self enrichment? I think we're going to be ok, yep.",2023-07-11 04:28:11,nickajeglin,17,POSITIVE 467,"Did Valve actually put out a statement like that? I can't find it. Everything I've seen from them is that they are and have been requiring developers to say they either have or have licensed the copyright for the assets used in their games, and most AI art generators don't let developers say that.",2023-07-10 23:18:35,morolin,10,NEGATIVE 468,"So it's ok for you to use AI that was trained on copyrighted material, but not ok for others to use a different AI that was trained on copyrighted materials?",2023-07-10 23:38:13,Deathoftheages,32,NEGATIVE 469,"Transformative work falls under fair use. Using AI is fine as long as you're not doing something like using AI to recreate Mickey Mouse and then trying to sell the Mickey Mouse you created. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ >Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.",2023-07-10 23:24:57,crazysoup23,19,NEGATIVE 470,"This is highly reductive and silly. I've watched an oil painter and all they did was brush some gunk onto a canvas. I've watched a jockey and all they did was fiddle with some reins. Etc.",2023-07-11 00:41:13,hide_my_ident,4,NEGATIVE 471,Coding is more like using stencils. You copy outlines and fill in the work yourself. You can’t just copy paste an entire project.,2023-07-11 01:16:28,rryukee,1,NEGATIVE 472,But the program doesn’t use the full text of a book to create the summary. The summary is written by a statistical analysis of other summaries. What this lawsuit alleges is just not how AI programs work.,2023-07-11 04:05:41,podcastcritic,10,NEGATIVE 473,"Yep. I still get a trillion tech bros feeling very proud they can explain to me that ""ummm ackshually sweaty the model does not contain any copies"", not understanding that if you are compiling a dataset to train such a model, you can have as many layers of indirection you want, but at some point you are by necessity making copies of the originals...",2023-07-11 11:07:16,-The_Blazer-,4,NEGATIVE 474,"No, the training is not infringing. In no way is training an AI infringing on copyright. There is no substantive difference between training an AI on a large set of creative works, and a person learning from and being influenced by creative works. It's honestly more fair IMO, since the AI is trained on vastly more material than a person could conceivably be, so the end product is less ""related"" to any one original piece. The fact that a creator could ""recognize"" their work in the generated works of AI is a result of two things: * Bias, since a creator knows their own creation better than anyone else * The fact that they're not as creative or original as they thought they were, and in fact their products share similarities with many other creative works. Obtaining the book(s) / work(s) from Bibliotik is obviously theft, but the method by which the training material was collected has no bearing on the generated work.",2023-07-11 00:35:34,Kravego,4,NEGATIVE 475,"He has to pay the composer to sue his composition, but he can listen to Herbie Hancock’s music and compose a Herbie Hancock-style composition of his own with infringing copyright",2023-07-11 03:56:27,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 476,"You are incorrect about the input. Every use of a copyrighted work needs to be properly licensed. The machine is ""learning"" it by listening to the song or reading the book. The copy it peanrs on must he licensed. You can look at the code if you have a license to the game. It's the same thing. You aren't systematically observing millions of lines of code and exploiting it commercially- so your use is not the same and thus the license needed is not the same. That is the argument. This use is not licensed--or worse, the copies being ingested are unlicensed all together. This is a big legal question that needs to be excited. The outputs being similar is ANOTHER potential issue--but the input also needs to be licensed.",2023-07-10 23:35:21,DizzyFrogHS,2,NEGATIVE 477,"In this case this is exactly what’s being alleged though. For the uninitiated, memory does not mean data storage. You cannot have a machine read something without it being in memory. You cannot look at pictures on your phone without your phone *temporarily* saving a copy of the image. Streaming a movie is no different from downloading a movie, other than “downloading” implying you’re intentionally storing it on a hard drive. So while the AI has not kept the entirety of the original text, it did download the entire thing at one point prior to, or during, the training process. That original data has since been discarded almost assuredly, though allegedly it retained enough recognizable content to constitute a breach of copyright whether or not it was obtained illegally. Which is also the part of the allegation, as you said.",2023-07-11 02:14:12,Funkula,9,NEGATIVE 478,"> Feeding music into AI does not mean copying it into memory. Of course it does. If the neural network is running on a computer and it's being fed music, it sure as fuck loads the music into memory. >E.g. dalle-2 contains basically the whole domain of human visual knowledge despite being only 2 gigabytes. That has nothing to do with the networks training. The AI still needs to ""look"" at all the training data. Which 100% goes through memory (and before that, arguably even worse, permanent storage somewhere). The model itself is then smaller, yes. But you work the same way. Your brain stores less than literally EVERYTHING you ever experienced. Way, way less. Doesn't mean you didn't experience those things.",2023-07-11 02:22:13,Testo69420,5,NEGATIVE 479,says the internet rando whos entire world view is formed by memes and 4chan comment sections,2023-07-11 00:14:39,queerhistorynerd,-6,NEGATIVE 480,my bad!,2023-07-10 22:38:47,kree8r,1,NEGATIVE 481,"Search engines and AI may be materially different. This is likely where the legal arguments will converge. AI lawyers will try to say it's the same as search. Creators will say it is not, and the key difference may be that AI uses can replace the original, where search does not. For example, you search for a news article you heard about. Tbe search engine looks at the ibterbet, finds a result, gives you a small snippet so you can see if it's the right result for you, and then you click the article. What yoh get is the original article. With AI, the AI isn't giving you a link to the article- it goes out and searches for the article and others like it. Reads them. Then re-writes it to tell you what the article says. Maybe it combines multiple articles. Etc. You don't need to get the original now. You've got what you needed. So the original creator never gets the ad revenue from the page visit, or the subscription revenue from monthly subscriptions. Maybe AI pays for the subscription and then regurgitates it re-written for everyone. The fact is, AI is trying to be a replacement for the original content. Whether the output is a similar ""copy"" or not may not really matter. If the input involves copying and the output is designed to replace the original, it is very likely the fair use defense that protected search engines could fail to protect AI. There was a recent Supreme Court fair use case where the replacement effect of a transformative derivative work resulted in the defense failing.",2023-07-10 23:43:50,DizzyFrogHS,9,NEGATIVE 482,"Search engines are not displaying the entire corpus of the content. Arguably aren't even storing any of it, but heuristics about word associations. They link to the source. It's clearly fair use, especially if they obey robots.txt. If the plaintiffs can conjure many examples of specific quotes or fine grained summaries of certain chapters from the content of chatgpt, then the defendants are boned. Hopefully their legal team already had tried this before they go and 'fix' the AI engine.",2023-07-10 20:26:41,darthcoder,-6,NEGATIVE 483,[gelöscht],2023-07-11 04:24:31,,1,POSITIVE 484,How does chatgpt replace her book?,2023-07-11 03:14:44,Jimid41,3,NEGATIVE 485,"It doesn't really. No one would confuse ChatGPT for a book, and it isn't being sold as one.",2023-07-11 02:42:06,No_Industry9653,3,NEGATIVE 486,"Sure, I get that. But I was replying to OP's scenario: > Public availability isn't the same as unfettered right to use. E.g., you can't just go to the library, copy a book, and start selling.",2023-07-10 19:50:21,Shok3001,7,NEGATIVE 487,Could they not just say that it found a different summary of the book? Or like... 500 different summaries?,2023-07-10 20:32:18,throwawaytheist,4,NEGATIVE 488,"what if I found the book on the street, then summarized it",2023-07-10 19:23:03,sjwillis,2,NEGATIVE 489,"Can we pause for a second to recognize how cool the idea of ""shadow libraries"" would be? Like some dimly lit underground library with shelf after shelf of leather bound book and scary chains and artifacts all over. Instead. It's just a poorly formatted ugly website that looks like it's from the early 90's.",2023-07-10 20:59:30,LethalMindNinja,0,NEGATIVE 490,"But if the library had a bootleg copy of a book, that doesn’t make you legally liable as the writer of a summary of the book.",2023-07-11 04:01:14,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 491,"Sure but if the library didn't pay for the book you shouldn't be liable. Edit: Like I realize ""who should be sued"" is basically a trick question anyway. You always sue where the money is at, but it's really not a good thing when pirates get hit with lawsuits. The DMCA is supposed to be used to stop the *distribution* of copyrighted works not random Aholes from downloading from random sites. A gigantic number of things people are pirating are basically abandoned by their creaters anyway and creating precedent for Disney, and other litigious companies, to sue more people is bad.",2023-07-10 19:42:55,Carvj94,3,NEGATIVE 492,"I wonder if it is possible for libraries to be donated copies of books (not copies as in someone reproducing a book hundreds of times, but literally physical copies bought by someone else)?",2023-07-10 20:22:38,travelsonic,1,NEGATIVE 493,"even if somebody stole the book and put it in the library, because you had no intent to steal. Proving intent is wicked hard.",2023-07-10 23:51:50,Jiggawatz,1,NEGATIVE 494,"Sir, this is reddit. We demand you abide by the social conventions present on this site and stick to he headlines. Thank you.",2023-07-10 18:27:49,leibnizslaw,14,NEGATIVE 495,Sure you replied to the right comment? Cause the comment you replied to is absolutely pertinent and your comment makes no sense.,2023-07-10 15:44:21,atchet,-15,NEGATIVE 496,Are you new here? LOL,2023-07-10 16:17:08,Snoo57923,-12,POSITIVE 497,Thank you for this write up. I found it more informative than 99% of the written blather about this issue.,2023-07-12 20:21:20,gouss101,2,NEGATIVE 498,"> Sarah has to prove that any use of her work is not fair use Fair use is hard, Sarah doesn't have to prove it the other side does, and in this case the can't actually get a disposition from the most important player, which is how you defend copyright suits with fair use. The person who actually did it, explains. And even if it was summarizing summaries, that's a potential copyright issue with the summaries.",2023-07-10 16:55:31,dank_the_enforcer,33,NEGATIVE 499,">Sarah has to prove that any use of her work is not fair use Slightly pedantic, but in the US it's the other way around. The burden is on the defendant to show that it is fair use.",2023-07-10 16:38:26,curien,52,NEGATIVE 500,I mean I sure feel like every single thing I've tried to get chatgpt to do that chatgpt has in fact not actually read any actual summaries of whatever it is. Like I sure loved the summary it gave of Desperate Housewives that involved everyone being a drug dealer.,2023-07-10 22:36:36,OneGoodRib,1,NEGATIVE 501,I don't know if that's true-- there are bots that summarize longer text down to size. And I don't know how much it matters if the book was included in the training material used (which seems to be the case). Or even if summarizing the text is an important element of the complaint.,2023-07-11 04:36:07,snark_attak,1,NEGATIVE 502,"but they are not the illegal site, they are not liable for that, the website hosting illegal works is. If you went on netflix and watched a movie only to find out they didnt have the rights to it, they don't sue you, even if you write a review of the movie, they sue netflix... This case is most likely going to be a small settlement that she will deny because she is doing it politically... then we will see it pan out but from my reading this doesnt really hold water. Proving liability is going to be nuts.",2023-07-10 18:52:31,Jiggawatz,8,NEGATIVE 503,"Civil trials have a *much* lower threshold of proof (preponderance of evidence, NOT beyond reasonable doubt), and it is generally ill advised to plead the fifth amendment. Legally speaking, doing such is not seen as an admission of guilt. However, the jury can, and most likely will, assume that's exactly what it means, and they are absolutely within their rights to make this assumption. But, importantly, there is a difference between *facts* and *guilt*. Establishing that the company used the book during training is only one step (it's the fact). The lawyers would still need to argue that said use was a violation and caused damages and all that other stuff (the guilt). It's entirely possible that they used the book during training, and were legally justified in doing so. It's *also* possible that the use of the book was not justifiable, but no damages can be quantified. Because of this, in my opinion, a reasonable judge would force the company to provide the information.",2023-07-11 18:14:13,almightySapling,2,NEGATIVE 504,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 14:21:52,,28,POSITIVE 505,By effectively getting the whole book by pieces because of how information and the internet works. If it ends in the same results...,2023-07-10 14:57:08,Zech08,-7,POSITIVE 506,"Well lets say The AI wants to access 1M books. That would cost them 20M$ for 20$ a book? That is pretty substantial. Lets say because of this illegal access, they will want 50K$ for each violation? 1M books it read so far, could turn into lawsuits range to 50B$? There is also the problem of using likeness with the AI write articles as if the authors wrote them. That could also be an issue and if they will want compensation for it, it could also cost a lot more.",2023-07-10 21:33:46,Defoler,0,NEGATIVE 507,True. But tbf for her that is not a lot. The outcome will be a lot pricier to the company,2023-07-10 18:30:24,Defoler,0,NEGATIVE 508,"Is the value immense though? To the normal average person? It’s going to be potentially groundbreaking for search engines, which everyone uses, but beyond that? The novelty of randomly generating a book, the novelty of writing something in a particular artist’s style, or for the lazy who don’t want to do things on their own but still profit from it (especially corporations.) I very much have a bias but think ai art, entertainment, writing, etc, is something that is absolutely fascinating and insane that it can exist, while being something that shouldn’t exist. The problem isn’t for people who are currently living, because we already learned our skills, but for generations a bit off from now, where no one actually knows how to write, draw, etc, because it’s all done for them. And obviously it sucks for anyone with any kind of artistic passion because someone out there is going to use their content to make themselves money while doing none of the actual work. So I’d love a world where in 5 years we have laws that prevent models from both learning from copyright content, but also producing anything copywrited, for example, ai art won’t be able to “draw me super Mario beating up everyone from the justice league.”",2023-07-10 19:56:09,FrankyCentaur,1,NEGATIVE 509,"I agree it is a problem. And AI makers will have to address it. Or lawmakers will have to. Or courts could create a precedent that either allows AI or disallows AI. There is a really nice book series called WWW trilogy. It is a good example of a AI doing something good. Though the books do tackle a bit about the morality of it. Of course there is also the terminator documentary series which gives us the scare about what could happen with AI.",2023-07-10 21:38:02,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 510,"I gave consent to reddit. I made no such agreement with OpenAI. That company did not exist when I opened this account. And I don't think reddit made an agreement with OpenAI. So... what are you talking about? This is the relevant part: >Much of the information on the Services is public and accessible to everyone, even without an account. By using the Services, you are directing us to share this information publicly and freely. > >When you submit content (including a post, comment, chat message, or broadcast) to a public part of the Services, any visitors to and users of our Services will be able to see that content, the username associated with the content, and the date and time you originally submitted the content. Reddit allows other sites to embed public Reddit content via our embed tools. Reddit also allows third parties to access public Reddit content via the Reddit API and other similar technologies. Although some parts of the Services may be private or quarantined, they may become public (e.g., at the moderator's option in the case of private communities) and you should take that into consideration before posting to the Services. I don't believe large language model training for profit was the aim when this user agreement was drawn up. The intent of this user agreement was to keep the words within the scope of the discussions happening on reddit.",2023-07-10 19:15:29,,1,POSITIVE 511,"Maybe. Though fan fiction has been found legal in most places under fair use. So it could be able to use fair use to make summaries or even create a piece that is similar (though if they take money off it, it could also be as a cosplayer taking money for photo-shoots as a character they don't own, so I guess kinda gray area? No sure). But if it copied a book it got illegally and it keeps accessing it, I don't know if you can consider it a second violation. But they might claim it keeps sharing illegal obtained copyright work.",2023-07-10 21:26:16,Defoler,1,NEGATIVE 512,"You made it about fan fiction. And fan fiction usually falls under fair use. And this could fall under unfair discrimination. Though it will be harder to get a judge to agree.",2023-07-10 21:59:57,Defoler,0,NEGATIVE 513,"“The side of the law” is very fluid at the frontier. The point is, that if the court decides that this is against the law, the US is going to be significantly economically hampered. You mention companies’ profit. The best case, in terms of wealth distribution, is that everyone has very cheap/easy access to useful AI models. The worst case is that only the richest companies can afford to jump through all the hoops to make one, and then they charge everyone for using it. If one has to track down and negotiate with an endless list of rights holders for their model to be able to read enough material to train, only the largest companies will produce these, and we’ll all be paying rent to them.",2023-07-10 15:31:42,prestodigitarium,-9,NEGATIVE 514,You will make it impossible for anyone OTHER than a handful of companies to make profit because only the richest companies will be able to afford all the lawsuits.,2023-07-10 16:42:20,Entalstate,0,NEGATIVE 515,"Oh don’t worry, the companies won’t care about the law, it will just keep lay people from doing it.",2023-07-10 15:56:24,Xin_shill,1,NEGATIVE 516,"Microsoft is, but adding that kind of friction will hamper open source model efforts a lot more than it will the companies with the manpower to handle this. I work on this stuff, and one of my biggest (and frankly most likely to come to pass) fears is it becoming impossible for anybody outside of FAANG-tier companies to be able to handle the regulatory requirements of training these. Because if this ends up being as impactful as I think (a significant portion of white collar work being obsoleted), then it really matters who the economic benefit goes to. I want the benefits of these to be spread as widely as possible, which means open source models that anyone can run for the cost of hardware rental.",2023-07-10 15:56:38,prestodigitarium,2,NEGATIVE 517,Reading/watching something is not stealing it.,2023-07-10 15:34:14,prestodigitarium,-3,NEGATIVE 518,Wikipedia has book summaries,2023-07-10 18:45:39,jonbristow,1,NEGATIVE 519,Basically they just read every wiki page for every character and story synopsises rather than the book itself.,2023-07-10 16:06:23,Falsus,-2,NEGATIVE 520,"> That's the fun part about US law. That's everywhere. This case, however, involves actual copyright infringement prior to the AI even being involved in summarizing anything.",2023-07-10 17:01:14,dank_the_enforcer,4,NEGATIVE 521,"If they can prove the summary came from an illegally obtained version of the book then surely they do have a copyright case, admittedly a lot less juicy than the Artist vs AI one being sold",2023-07-10 18:22:24,KillerWattage,0,NEGATIVE 522,"That does seem to be the side Sarah is fighting for right now, yes.",2023-07-10 13:58:16,Lallo-the-Long,4,POSITIVE 523,"Nah, Sarah Silverman is a has been, hungry for limelight, always tries to latch onto whatever is currently doing rounds on the internet. WGA is striking and one of their clause is about AI, so she decided to jump on the bandwagon. This is going to be first and last time we hear about this case. GPT is backed by Microsoft, which has a army of lawyers so good at their job, this might not even reach the courts.",2023-07-10 15:27:50,NaRaGaMo,1,NEGATIVE 524,Did they pirate said books?,2023-07-10 17:18:52,insane_contin,1,NEGATIVE 525,That's only true of one of the 3 in question,2023-07-11 01:11:39,SnooPineapples1133,1,NEGATIVE 526,"With AI, you wouldn't be copying it into a database. You'd be associating words with various variables. It's a lot more complex then it seems.",2023-07-10 22:31:34,insane_contin,2,NEGATIVE 527,"I started in 2007, and am back to working in it regularly talking with the developers making hundred million dollars which aren't released yet, and nope.",2023-07-11 00:02:56,AnOnlineHandle,1,NEGATIVE 528,"> It prevents you from making unauthorized copies. Correct. And that's what happened here. They made an unauthorized copy, and then after that, the AI summarized that copy. The summary isn't infringement; the infringement is infringement.",2023-07-10 17:05:07,dank_the_enforcer,-1,NEGATIVE 529,">While copyright does protect against unauthorised copying and distribution of original works, it does not prevent learning or gaining inspiration from the ideas or concepts contained within these works. ""In March 2015, the jury ruled in favor of the Gaye estate, stating that while Williams and Thicke did not directly copy “Got to Give It Up,” ***there was enough of a similar “feel” to warrant copyright infringement***. Gaye’s heirs were awarded $7.4 million in damages, the largest amount ever granted in a music copyright case."" [https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright) I am totally in agreement with you. Still, Ed Sheeran fought a drawn out case, he was being sued on what amounts to learning and drawing from literal measurements of Western music theory to write a song that fits a genre. He wrote what he learned and understood from western pop music. And was sued for millions - he had to bust out his guitar and explain the shit to the jury to win...was planning on quitting music if he lost. Copyright is one thing on paper - something entirely else in practice.",2023-07-10 17:14:30,4r1sco5hootahz,2,NEGATIVE 530,How did they obtain the training data? Did Chat GPT buy a copy of every single work they trained on? Something tells me no.,2023-07-10 13:36:46,reflectioninternal,6,NEGATIVE 531,"I mean I agree with you - it was a travesty. >it wasn't followed, because neither the judge nor the jury understood the law, nor did they understand music. It should never have gone before a jury of laypeople. But that was the only way it was going to be successful. This doesn't sound like a mess to you? What the law says and how the law is enforced is crucial. If what the law says does nothing to stop abuse of said law - you have a mess. I am not talking about the language or grammar or penmanship being a mess. I am talking about implementation.",2023-07-10 17:29:38,4r1sco5hootahz,1,NEGATIVE 532,"You still can’t just create a derivative work of transformed content, like putting Luke Skywalker and Yoda into a new location, without risking violating the copyright of the original work. I think AI is so different than traditional people making works etc, that a lot of this is just untreaded territory… you obviously couldn’t have ChatGPT just write a new Star Wars book or movie and then sell it. Is it ok for it to create such a work if it isn’t sold? Is it ok for it to be trained on such works without permission of the original copyright holder? I don’t think we can just plug in and assume ChatGPT = a person, the capabilities just aren’t the same.",2023-07-10 14:14:51,sunnbeta,3,NEGATIVE 533,Fair point. That still doesn't clear up the training dataset itself or the legality of derived works from it.,2023-07-11 15:42:35,,1,NEGATIVE 534,"Woops, sorry. Replaced with screenie.",2023-07-11 20:22:23,-The_Blazer-,1,NEGATIVE 535,"I guess if ""large language model training"" constitutes commercial use it is up to the courts to decide. There's definitely an argument to be made there, but as of right now there is no legal precedent to claim that it does. Guess this case might clear that up.",2023-07-10 11:34:22,rockingmonkey,10,NEGATIVE 536,No it isn't like saying that at all. It's like saying you only owe an author the cost of a single book if you read their book then make a work using similar genre tropes and stylistic choices.,2023-07-10 11:48:30,,-6,NEGATIVE 537,"If that happens, then you sue the person that releases that knockoff, not the maker of the tool used. Just like you don’t sue Adobe for Photoshop’s ability to manipulate images in potentially harmful ways.",2023-07-10 15:10:11,prestodigitarium,8,NEGATIVE 538,"if musicians can sue each other due to songs sounding suspiciously similar, I feel like authors can sue for uncanny representations of their style",2023-07-10 13:56:11,nyanlol,-6,NEGATIVE 539,It’s really no different that how the human brain stores information. I don’t see how you can say “computer” bad while “human brain” good. Neural networks are literally a mathematical formula that simulates a human neuron.,2023-07-10 20:49:31,Munqaxus,1,NEGATIVE 540,"Yes, but it was fed a lot of data that includes a lot of texts crawled from the internet. It wasn't ""the entire internet"", as some people like to claim, but a significant portion of it. If it's publicly available on the internet, there is a big chance that it was included in the training data.",2023-07-10 13:50:10,smjsmok,17,NEGATIVE 541,">GPT doesn’t search though, Why are you saying this? It has Bing search and Webpilot, Voxscript, and many other Plugins?",2023-07-10 22:18:10,EarlHammond,1,NEGATIVE 542,"LLMs are not databases lol They are effectively a massive set of arrays of numbers. The training data and methodology changes the numbers from their default values to their final values. It doesn't store any of its training data.",2023-07-10 14:53:07,yttropolis,10,NEGATIVE 543,AI models like ChatGPT are not fucking databases. I don't know where people get this shit all the time. The material used to train the models is not saved in the model.,2023-07-10 16:35:01,Nhefluminati,6,NEGATIVE 544,"> it is a data base. No it isn't",2023-07-10 12:58:55,Les-Freres-Heureux,25,NEGATIVE 545,"That's genuinely not how AI works, speaking as somebody who has studied and worked in AI for a few years. It's like saying vaccines contain microchips, it's just not possible given the size. I'm not saying it's as bad to spread that misconception since it's not as dangerous, but it's very frustrating to see people speak so confidently about things they clearly don't understand.",2023-07-10 12:29:39,AnOnlineHandle,29,NEGATIVE 546,"> a boy named Larry who was born with magical abilities and got sent to a magical school where hijinks and danger ensues Hmm, maybe instead of Larry we could call him Percy Jackson? Or Landon Snow? Or Billy Owens? Or Leven Thumps? Or Charlie Bone? Or Quentin Coldwater? Or Rose Hathaway?",2023-07-10 16:12:52,,3,NEGATIVE 547,"OpenAI has stated that they had two training datasets that were copies of books, Book1 and Book2 for training GPT 3, along with a third for Gpt 4, Book3. ​ This lawsuit is about exactly that: they copied books. They suspect that these were copyrighted books. This lawsuit isn't about how 'machine learning works' but these companies copying their books. ​ And it's pretty obvious that these datasets are just a copy of libgen or something just like it. There is absolutely no way it could have some of the details that it does of something like A Game of Thrones from online reviews/summaries. A judge could pretty easily get them to reveal what was in these datasets exactly for OpenAi but in the case of Meta we already know that it is 100% copyrighted content.",2023-07-10 16:33:01,HalfLifeII,3,NEGATIVE 548,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 12:36:07,,-5,POSITIVE 549,"You sound excited and giddy that the creatives of the world can soon be obsolete. And the link you provided only helps the argument of those against AI. Not only will AI make some creative and STEM jobs obsolete, the people (businesses) will make more of a profit with the loss of those jobs. The only people to win in the AI debate are CEOs and higher management who want more money in their pocket.",2023-07-10 16:03:38,FaerieQueene510,1,NEGATIVE 550,"But if the resulting output is the same, what's the difference? Whether a human created the summary or an AI shouldn't matter, it matters what the person who now has that summary on their hands will do with it.",2023-07-10 18:51:48,Artess,2,NEGATIVE 551,"This is the thing that AI bros usually don't understand or don't want to understand. A human can be held accountable. AI can't. The argument often goes (as is the case all over this thread and all others on this subject) that if a human can be ""inspired"" by someone elses work, how is what an AI does any different? Easy, they're not a person. That's it. That's the end of it.",2023-07-10 15:10:12,walterpeck1,2,NEGATIVE 552,"In order for the benefits of this stuff to be distributed, it needs to be widespread, to the point where normal people can run their own. Requiring that it take a massive amount of manpower to track down the rights holder for anything that your model-in-training ingests is an extremely good way to make sure that only the largest corporations can afford to train one of these (or maybe even just people in other countries that aren’t hampered by these sorts of laws). And in that case, who do you think the economic benefits will accrue to? Allowing copyright holders to put it under their rent-seeking yoke would be a massive, massive mistake.",2023-07-10 15:12:55,prestodigitarium,-2,NEGATIVE 553,"Sadly, meaningful protections against AI will likely never happen either.",2023-07-10 18:13:06,super_noentiendo,-1,NEGATIVE 554,You should read more about how these work before you speak with this kind of confidence.,2023-07-10 15:16:04,prestodigitarium,0,POSITIVE 555,"You told them to shut down their pointing out of the flaws of the argument because you don't want AI 'protected', but the truth is what should matter, not whether it fits the goal you want.",2023-07-10 14:22:07,AnOnlineHandle,0,NEGATIVE 556,"Have you mixed me up for somebody else? I'm not sure if I've ever used the word 'luddites' in my life before this post.",2023-07-11 00:05:56,AnOnlineHandle,1,NEGATIVE 557,Huh? I have no idea how you got that from my post. I am self-employed and got the vaccines for free in my country.,2023-07-11 00:04:16,AnOnlineHandle,1,NEGATIVE 558,"The real thing to consider is “why make laws when everybody is going to break them”. This is why “alcohol is illegal” is a bad idea, and it’s why “all useful AI (AI trained on publicly available data) is illegal” is a bad idea.",2023-07-10 15:07:23,sluuuurp,0,NEGATIVE 559,"""Why make an actual point when I can use a strawman""",2023-07-10 18:14:12,super_noentiendo,-2,NEGATIVE 560,I wasnt talking about the lawsuit. I was talking about how pitable you are.,2023-07-10 12:28:29,T3chn0Punk,-19,NEGATIVE 561,"If you have to ask, then I pity you",2023-07-10 12:26:45,T3chn0Punk,-16,NEGATIVE 562,Art needs gatekeepers,2023-07-10 14:58:48,lukewarmpiss,-6,NEGATIVE 563,"Hang on, I think you've contradicted yourself. You said earlier that art is something you can hold, see or read. Though you're speaking figuratively, the implication there is that art is some objective item, that remains even when the intepreter is removed. But now you've said that art is whatever someone calls art, which doesn't fit. If what makes something art is consuming it as such, then art itself has no physical presence. Additionally, you said that it is something created that one derives meaning from. How ""created?"" You state that (as far as we know) naturally occuring things like galaxies can be seen as an art, so how is created defined here? My main question, though, is, why? Why is art what anything says is art, where does this conclusion come from? Is it conjured so that everything one considers art is still art, is it derived somehow else?",2023-07-12 07:39:33,EightsidedHexagon,0,NEGATIVE 564,"LLMs are famously not good at long texts, consistency and structure. It's in their design.",2023-07-10 16:03:16,Gross_Success,2,NEGATIVE 565,"funny, it wouldn't do it for the holocaust because it was sensitive but the taipei rebellion (in which 5-6x as many people perished in abject and horrific circumstance, also like the holocaust itself) it had no issue with...",2023-07-10 13:54:25,Sexehexes,2,POSITIVE 566,">they feel like they're reading something for smart people when it's actually crap pandering to the lowest common denominator I get the feeling you don't have very accurate or good insights about the minds of people you don't like. >Also I automatically ignore the opinions from whoever unironically likes Brandon Sanderson I'm sorry that people have different tastes from you 😔",2023-07-10 14:58:49,actionheat,2,NEGATIVE 567,No the article is about copywrite. This thread is about how crypto bros failed to steal peoples money and now think they're artists because they told a computer program to take existing work and mash it together.,2023-07-10 17:49:33,T3chn0Punk,-1,NEGATIVE 568,I think you’re underestimating what this can do.,2023-07-10 14:19:28,Subterania,5,NEGATIVE 569,Those still require knowledge and expertise concerning music. There is still a creation process. Photoshop is the same. These ML-algorithms instead replace the entire creative process.,2023-07-10 12:08:40,KronosCifer,7,NEGATIVE 570,"I'm thinking the Luddite riots, it wasn't about technology being bad. They were never opposed to that. The problem was when automation hurt THEM. Which is consistently what we see with this stuff. People don't mind the benefits of automation, the cheaper prices and such. They oppose when they are negatively impacted so others can benefit. My two pence? Same happens here. We discover that it is beneficial economically and adapt and move on with some minor legal work changes.",2023-07-11 01:54:10,Mist_Rising,1,NEGATIVE 571,"Do you think they asked ""will technology progress?"" or something? They asked ""is this something WE WANT"" and you say yes but then give zero reasons why it's something you want. You just point out that technology has made advances before.. not really relevant to the question tho. If someone asked you ""is the atomic bomb really something WE WANT"" and your answer was ""Yes it is, cars destroyed horse drawn carriages, show we not have made cars"" then you can see how that's totally unrelated right? Whether or not someone invents the atomic bomb has nothing to do with whether it's something YOU WANT. Like why do YOU WANT to be forced to adapt to ChatGPT or get run over? That's the question you were asked, not whether or not ChatGPT already exists and is capable of replacing existing technologies.",2023-07-11 02:55:54,Feroshnikop,2,NEGATIVE 572,Why are big companies using “AI” to replace Making Art though? Why is that something that needs to be destroyed?,2023-07-10 18:40:48,MrPookPook,2,POSITIVE 573,Considering we are now facing climate change because the use of fossil fuels I think we should've not made cars.,2023-07-10 10:54:33,,-32,NEGATIVE 574,">The production of too many useful tools will create too many useless people. -Karl Marx. Transportation, service and logistics are going to begin to completely collapse as employment sectors within the next twenty to twenty five years. Nobody in large scale operations management doubts this because they're all actively working on parts of plans to make it happen. And of course this isn't all because of chatgpt. Self driving vehicles will be enormous. Grocery warehouse automation has improved to the point it can pick carts for home delivery while it's going. Machines are just better at too many things. There's nowhere for unskilled workers being replaced by this to go. There is little reasonable doubt that there is going to be problematically more unskilled workers than jobs in the relatively near future. That isn't to suggest that we should stop the technology. It's too late for that now anyway. But comparing it to computers and typewriters is naive.",2023-07-10 20:31:09,Cerinthus2,0,NEGATIVE 575,"Typewriters still exist. People who once used typewriters learned to use the keyboard and mouse. Cars replaced horses to allow the driver to go further in their travels. Cars destroyed our environment and have and will continue to take lives. The people using AI are the ones destroying the hardworking livelihood of other people. It's not AI thats doing harm, it's the person behind the computer that is.",2023-07-10 16:16:33,FaerieQueene510,-3,POSITIVE 576,Human intellect is the tech it looks to replace,2023-07-10 14:26:35,Subterania,-8,POSITIVE 577,">Should we have not made cars, I'll say yes not because it was harmful to horse and buggy but because it fucks the environment and humans use it irresponsibly. But just so it's clear, the whole ""adapt or die"" shit is a bad argument since If we aren't careful, technology won't be the issue, the mass unemployment will be. Turns out angry people en-masse is a bad bad thing, and massive unemployment is really bad.",2023-07-11 01:59:29,Mist_Rising,1,NEGATIVE 578,Yep. Automation can set the worker free but can also ‘justify’ paying them a lot less.,2023-07-10 11:33:29,MajesticToebean,21,POSITIVE 579,"Listen, this is going to hugely benefit the bottom line of a lot of businesses who will only need to outsource technicians proficient in the tech, seems obvious. Why is that a good thing?",2023-07-10 14:25:17,Subterania,4,POSITIVE 580,">Because making machines do work means humans don't need to do as much work to keep total output the same. This has literally not been how automation works, historically. Workers will continue working the same amount for the same pay, while capital owners make greater profits.",2023-07-10 14:47:18,actionheat,2,NEGATIVE 581,"Speaking as a working artist, yes many of us do want it. Anything you do over and over as a job for survival you will want better tools to speed up, it's a slow grinding job at a desk like anything else which takes a thousand times longer than we want to. That's why many of us are using it in our workflow, just like we're using photoshop, undo buttons, layers, etc, all which were called similar evils. So far it hasn't really helped with speeding up because there's so many problems with it to solve and workflows to build, but it's the first time I've been excited as an artist in years.",2023-07-10 12:33:47,AnOnlineHandle,2,NEGATIVE 582,">art is an expression of self. Sure, but then we can say that there is a lot of text-writing and visual illustration work that has never been ""art"" by that definiton. When a mom and pop coffee shop wants the drawing of a cute girl drinking coffee, to decorate their banner logo above the entrance, they are not looking for the human baring of the soul's inner depths, but for a commercial product. If that gets automated that's a positive in the same way as the ability to send emails instantly for free instead of by mailman, is a positive. On the other hand, the AI can only take away the profit motive. If you want to paint a picture or write a novel or play a song or whatever, the AI isn't going to take away your ability to do that, only the corrupting motivation to do something that resembles that but isn't really done for the expression of the self but purely for money.",2023-07-10 13:26:10,Genoscythe_,-1,NEGATIVE 583,"Its not just going to be slog labour replaced by machines, its creatives getting replaced by machines.",2023-07-10 12:09:33,KronosCifer,3,NEGATIVE 584,"Yeah maybe, seems like just another move to make the middle class expendable.",2023-07-10 23:35:51,Subterania,1,NEGATIVE 585,"LLMs use the same family of neural networks as classification models that do things like find smoke in images. In fact, some of the latest (research papers mostly) multi-modal approaches allow you to do things like input an image and asking the model whether there is fire/smoke in it. That may not currently be as performant as a purpose built neural network, but that's a matter of time and effort spent building the custom application.",2023-07-10 18:55:07,rukqoa,1,NEGATIVE 586,"Not ""What for?"", ""Why?"".",2023-07-10 21:17:17,timschwartz,1,NEGATIVE 587,"You're repeating your statement verbatim instead of explaining the validity of the reasoning behind it. I'm going to write your presence off, now, I don't see this comversation going anywhere.",2023-07-10 23:15:13,EightsidedHexagon,1,NEGATIVE 588,">If someone stole your bike, you caught them with it, and they then asked to borrow it, would you let them borrow it? there's a big difference between physical theft and copyright infringement, you're not deprived of property in copyright infringement.",2023-07-12 22:20:04,ninjasaid13,1,NEGATIVE 589,"You could ***try*** to just specifically hope for a legal reform that bans AI training specifically because it is AI training and it stops right there, but the cultural momentum is already swinging with pull force in the direction of how actually it is cool and normal for IP owners to commodify every possible scrap of externality from their property just existing and everything short of that is stealing from them.",2023-07-10 22:12:24,Genoscythe_,1,POSITIVE 590,"Here is what I found on derivative works: “First, the derivative work has protection under the copyright of the original work. Copyright protection for the owner of the original copyright extends to derivative works. This means that the copyright owner of the original work also owns the rights to derivative works. **Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission.**” https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law# Reviews and parodies are specific exemptions. If ChatGPT was merely providing AI written reviews, there would be no infringement. If ChatGPT wrote a sequel to Star Wars using the same characters and such, then obviously that cannot just be sold or profited from without risk of being sued by Disney.",2023-07-10 14:09:30,sunnbeta,-2,NEGATIVE 591,"I guess the courts will decide if that is what makes it allowable. Still with the example of reprinting and selling, which obviously isn’t allowed, would I be able to get around it by rewriting it from memory rather than direct duplication? I don’t believe you can just write and sell your own version of Star Wars unless you make it sufficiently different from the original. Even fan fiction stuff can get into infringement territory (I just don’t think there’s big money there, people aren’t profiting from it).",2023-07-10 13:45:14,sunnbeta,-2,NEGATIVE 592,"Yes. Of which Microsoft is the majoritary stake holder. Even the whole thing runs on Microsoft servers.",2023-07-10 19:53:26,Zeioth,0,POSITIVE 593,"Actually, I am overstating it a bit. They've said that AI-generated games *that can't demonstrate IP law compliance* can get booted. The rest is my interpretation of matters. >Stated plainly, our review process is a reflection of current copyright law and policies, not an added layer of our opinion.",2023-07-10 23:25:34,NorthernerWuwu,11,NEGATIVE 594,"But the relevant question Is: how much of the AI outputs are transformative. For example if you ask the AI for a code to do a particular task and, for whatever reason, the AI training process overfitted its response to this particular prompt to such a great extend that it writes code 95% similar to a code taken directly from an open source repo on github, is that transformative? There's already evidence of at least some open source code appearing directly in chatgpt outputs.",2023-07-11 05:28:39,username_elephant,1,NEGATIVE 595,Stop giving legal advice,2023-07-11 03:47:32,breakbeats573,-2,NEGATIVE 596,"this is use, not copying though. AI/LLMs don't copy except in the most pernickety sense (e.g. 'you had a copy of my work in your computer at some point'). This will be an interesting case but it's a very long shot imo (lawyer, though in a different field and country)",2023-07-11 11:29:14,sebmojo99,1,NEGATIVE 597,"WTF? I'm not suggesting that anyone can code. I'm just pointing out that programmers literally copy blocks of code verbatim...bc why type something out that works perfectly and is in your library already? You still have to have knowledge of how to get the program to execute, identify relevant libraries, introduce your own variables, debug, etc Would've thought this is common sense in relation to my comment on copying work. What are your horse riding and painting examples about, I don't get it? Something about technique or specific knowledge?",2023-07-11 00:56:18,Yabutsk,-5,NEGATIVE 598,"So where does the primary data come from? Do they train ChatGPT exclusively on summaries? How are those summaries generated? Is the original text just never touched by anyone? In that case, where do the summaries come from?",2023-07-11 11:08:37,-The_Blazer-,2,NEGATIVE 599,But AI is so kewl,2023-07-11 15:55:10,DizzyFrogHS,2,NEGATIVE 600,"> not understanding that if you are compiling a dataset to train such a model, you can have as many layers of indirection you want, but at some point you are by necessity making copies of the originals... And IMO there has to be a point, only so far one can go from the original data, and/or compressed versions of data, before the link becomes spurious - whether that is the case here or not I don't know.",2023-07-11 18:27:42,travelsonic,0,NEGATIVE 601,"Well, no, because piracy is not theft. The idea that piracy is theft is bullshit propaganda fed to us by massive media conglomerates. When you steal something from someone, they no longer have that thing. You have taken something from them. Meaning that while downloading a copy of a file you have not paid for may not be entirely ethical behavior, *it is by definition not theft*.",2023-07-11 01:09:01,RevvyJ,8,NEGATIVE 602,"Any artist who takes inspiration so closely from one source risks being sued, and it happens all the time. This is true even if the work is original and the similarity is a coincidence",2023-07-11 06:27:31,frogtown98,3,POSITIVE 603,I don't know where you're getting the code for these games. Unless the game is open-source you can't see that.,2023-07-11 05:00:15,monkeysuffrage,3,NEGATIVE 604,"You can break a license. That is against the law. There isn't a way to measure the potential affect it has on output. You are incorrect about this aspect. This is the case at hand. Maybe the outcome is that they develop new tests. I doubt it, though.",2023-07-10 23:38:35,IShowerinSunglasses,0,NEGATIVE 605,"I was not making a statement about the article or the lawsuit in my point about AI. I do think that this case could bring up interesting legal precedent, but I hate efforts that aim to regulate AI because there is a compelling case that these systems are more important than we are.",2023-07-11 04:06:10,obama_is_back,1,NEGATIVE 606,"Does this mean anytime I view anything copyrighted information with my browser/app/'whatever is making the HTTP GET', I'm breaking the law? If copying/caching files in any way triggers IP lawsuits, I don't see how the internet can function. To be clear, I do think AI is a problem. I just am skeptical there's a solution that's like ""stop silicon valley with one simple trick (tech bros hate him!)""",2023-07-11 05:36:41,DeathRabbit679,3,NEGATIVE 607,"Feeding music into AI means having it in memory, not copying. When you read a book the contents are not copied into your brain, but it is represented there some way or another. Of course I agree that getting unlicenced training data is a topic which deserves legal inquiry; it's why I wrote my last paragraph. I'm not sure why you are making a big deal about what's basically nomenclature.",2023-07-11 04:13:48,obama_is_back,2,POSITIVE 608,[gelöscht],2023-07-11 00:33:25,,1,POSITIVE 609,"> Search engines are not displaying the entire corpus of the content. Neither does ChatGPT. You won't get ChatGPT to write out anything that actually resembles a full copy of a book. (EDIT: Unless that book is in public domain and available over on gutenberg, but anything else pretty much hangs if you ask for full transcription or recreation, while asking for summary provides an answer in either case). > Arguably aren't even storing any of it, but heuristics about word associations. This applies even more to the language models.",2023-07-10 20:28:48,xternal7,9,NEGATIVE 610,"Have you an actually tried that? The text it produces has only very superficial similarities with an author if he is incredibly famous. For the most part, it doesn’t work. If you ask it to write a joke in the style of 10 different comedians, the jokes will all be about the same.",2023-07-11 04:49:19,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 611,"Yes they can say anything but they will have to prove that was the case. I feel this is all about discovery. Making this billion dollar org be open about how they have jammed enough data into these AIs. Where are they getting this data. Are they doing what any unregulated company would do...cheat until they get caught. I don't even know if our EULA agreements even cover what OpenAI is doing with our data. We are in a total grey area for the law and instead of working together together with the law and these tech companies. They do what they always do. ""Fuck you, I'll do whatever the hell I want until I break something or get caught breaking a law.""",2023-07-10 22:45:15,calahil,-1,NEGATIVE 612,"Then you’d have to prove that, which you really can’t. But it wouldn’t matter because that would never come up in real life, and it’s only coming up here because there’s no precedent with ai crud. I don’t know how the outcome would really be anything exciting, so she’s probably just doing this to say “I’d you’re gonna rip me off at least pay for my book.”",2023-07-10 19:46:43,FrankyCentaur,4,NEGATIVE 613,"If you know it's a ""library"" created specifically to collect books they didn't pay for, yes you should I knew accessing bitorrent meant I wasn't getting fair use copies and so did the creators of this chatbot",2023-07-10 20:19:43,lilbluehair,-1,NEGATIVE 614,I am not sure you understand sarcasm,2023-07-10 15:50:59,non_avian,31,NEGATIVE 615,No? I have an app on my phone for blind people (I can see) and it reads me the content posted here every day,2023-07-10 16:20:02,non_avian,5,NEGATIVE 616,"yes but she needs to provide concrete evidence that it did steal the book and she and her lawyers are going to have a hard time with that. If she can make a convincing enough case they would have to prove fair use, but they havent to date and knowing sarah silverman they are just looking for the headline.",2023-07-10 18:48:06,Jiggawatz,1,NEGATIVE 617,"Sure. Still, i think this is a pretty open and shut fair use case. It can't actually reproduce the work, just a summary of the work. It doesn't have any kind of chilling effect on the sales of the work because it's not reproducing the work. And as far as I'm aware none of these language models are commercial, they're research projects.",2023-07-10 17:02:25,Lallo-the-Long,-9,NEGATIVE 618,From a legal perspective it is very much not pedantic. Bearing the burden of proof is a huge deal.,2023-07-10 23:46:45,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 619,You don’t know if it is true because you haven’t read how AI programs work and are doubting me despite 1) your ignorance 2) my having just told you how they work,2023-07-11 04:47:34,podcastcritic,1,NEGATIVE 620,"The claim is that they are liable, since they ingested the book as part of their work, without being covered by things like first sale doctrine, and the ingestion process itself not being fair use. The claim is that it's knowingly commercial use of stolen goods.",2023-07-10 20:28:58,alexanderpas,3,NEGATIVE 621,They knowingly accessed an illegal site. Same as being in possession of stolen goods,2023-07-10 19:39:51,tgrantt,-3,NEGATIVE 622,"> If you went on netflix and watched a movie only to find out they didnt have the rights to it I don't think that is the right analogy. Silverman's lawyers were able to see in public information who Meta got their database from and where that company got the data for their database, which was piracy. It would be like paying a middleman to create a database of movies or music that they got from Pirate Bay. Meta is going to have trouble proving they couldn't reasonably have known that the data they were buying violated copyright. That is the first copyright violation. The second is that it appears that the AI still has a copy of the illegally-obtained copyrighted works that it can access and make a derivative work. I'm not an expert, but this probably isn't going to be deemed a Fair Use.",2023-07-10 20:31:59,CleverNickName-69,0,NEGATIVE 623,"So, if someone robs a store or bank, say, and I access the , say , $$$- I am OK? This seems unlikely.",2023-07-10 19:46:26,bilboafromboston,-2,NEGATIVE 624,"Fortunately for me, this is beyond my knowledge of the law. I plead the 5th! Thanks for the input; it may be an interesting case and there will probably be many more as AI gets popular. Lots of lawyers probably salivating over the possibilities.",2023-07-11 18:36:01,leftcoast-usa,1,NEGATIVE 625,"That information should never be trusted in court as research has definitively proven that LLMs will hallucinate about not just ""facts"" but also the process they get to them.",2023-07-10 16:28:01,rukqoa,7,NEGATIVE 626,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 14:34:12,,-1,POSITIVE 627,"If i watch and read so many reviews of Marvel's Infinity War that i can summarize it with scene descriptions, have i infringed on their copyright? But by all means, Sarah is welcome to try to prove that chatgpt can reproduce her work, rather than simply summarize it.",2023-07-10 15:10:03,Lallo-the-Long,4,NEGATIVE 628,lol no.,2023-07-10 23:32:48,crazysoup23,3,NEGATIVE 629,"When I talk about the value I'm not talking about the trivial apps that are coming right now that let you write emails or make random images to showcase what's possible. A language models true potential is in fields like education where it. A cater to your needs and explain topics to you in a ways you'll get them. It can complete tasks, and use the search engine for you it can help you automate all kinds of tasks cause it can write a plan and then use agents to execute it. It's very useful in both coding and data analytics. And while the whole art generation side is highly controversial for valid reasons, the advantage it gives people who can't make digital art is that if you want to make a visual aid for some task you no longer just have the option to search and copy someone's work you can use ai. And yes that is the situation where digital artist made money but lets be honest for every actual instance where someone would have hired a person to do it 5 more would now use custom graphics cause generation has been democratized. Language models have the potential to save businesses hundreds of man hours a year spent in knowledge management and automation tasks. It's very grey cause we don't know what people who'll lose work will do going forward and it could be any of us but we'll only make it more of a rich man's game if we make copyright laws too stringent against them. We need laws definitely but we have to make absolutely new ones that won't stop us from developing better tech. And honestly I doubt people will loose the ability to create art because of it or won't know how to do it. By the time we get to a new generation AI will change all kinds of professions and that is quite uncertain right now. But it's impact would be in commercial viability of making art that has to compete with AI. No one can write the book you write so if you wanna tell a story no-one is stopping you from writing it. Sure you can use a language model to edit it for you, to provide you with dialogue that suits a certain type of person better and that does make it a little boring but many will benefit from it. And so much visual art is honestly hard to describe even after seeing it, i don't think it would be easy to describe it to a model in words. Same for painting and other arts well. They'll end up being hobbies or you'll need to be too uniquely talented to have a career in it which i know is not right cause if you can't make a living to afford getting great in it then many people will quit before doing so. But honestly that happens in all professions and it really sucks but its true right now as well before these models came about. So many artists are trying and only a handful become successful.",2023-07-10 21:12:11,Mkboii,0,POSITIVE 630,publicly and freely would disqualify you from any lawsuit,2023-07-10 23:50:51,Jiggawatz,1,NEGATIVE 631,"Reddit could make an agreement or even have their API license access open enough to have not for us it at the time. You gave reddit permission to do with it as they will, including Not doing their job of protecting it from others.",2023-07-11 00:40:17,hawklost,1,NEGATIVE 632,No I didn't. It's called an example. It's still about how copyright works.,2023-07-10 22:03:53,TheLurkingMenace,0,NEGATIVE 633,"You say that like an AI can just be spun up on some old hard drive like a distribution of Linux. If you’re trying to create an actually useful AI, you already need to spend a metric fuckton on service hosting costs. Nobody is about to create a brand new AI “in their garage” that will be able to compete with a corporation’s resources. We have already reached that point and weakening our legal infrastructure to try and help them will only result in the big corporations increasing their profits even further.",2023-07-10 15:53:12,AsAGayJewishDemocrat,2,NEGATIVE 634,">You mention companies’ profit. The best case, in terms of wealth distribution, is that everyone has very cheap/easy access to useful AI models. The worst case is that only the richest companies can afford to jump through all the hoops to make one, and then they charge everyone for using it. Ding Ding Ding. You ever wonder why large companies already established in an industry often support greater regulation? It keeps out small competitors who don't have the resources to deal with all the red tape. It's the same with renters legislation. It favours renters over rentees which is great when the rentee is large corporation but drives the people who rent basement suites, duplexes etc out of the business and results in high rent prices due to rental shortages this defeating the original purpose. I just think a lot of people are concerned they will be out of a job, why hire a ghost writer to right your biography if you can ask ChatGP to write it in your voice? I think it a large jump to thinking people would rather read a ChatGP created version of a book rather than one written by the original. Where I think a real risk is present is in the book industries habit of selling ""TOM CLANCY presents"" type books of dead authors written by new (read cheap) authors. I bet an AI could write a pretty decent new Tom Clancy novel in no time.",2023-07-10 16:02:38,tman37,-2,NEGATIVE 635,"Honestly, I think ""fair use"" can handle this; legal precedent is already in place. Academic work has always been given fair use of copyrighted material. Make money off of something, you should pay for your material. Open source license, no need to pay. Isn't that fair? OpenAI is a multibillion dollar company. No need to get teary eyed for them. They have pockets. They should pay for their scrapes.",2023-07-10 17:04:27,,6,NEGATIVE 636,AIs aren't reading or watching anything. We really need to stop treating it like it's a person. AI is just a technology. Yes it may have some potential but we shouldn't throw all our laws away because of it.,2023-07-10 15:58:05,CaptainPigtails,0,NEGATIVE 637,"How did you gain access to the information is the determining factor on whether it is theft. I bought a book to read = no theft. I go to the book store and read the book without purchasing it = theft. I input the information from a book into the training side of AI without gaining copyright permission = theft. I borrow a book from a library that purchased the book = no theft. I borrow the book from a library to teach AI = theft because I may profit from that action. It's not black and white, as you seem to think. There is nuance in the law and you cannot disregard the law despite the seemingly innocent nuance of the action you used.",2023-07-10 16:09:18,jonnysunshine,-1,NEGATIVE 638,"That's not reading a book. I don't understand how ""reading a book"" has become an abstract concept. AI seems great for people who have cultivated the inability to pay attention to anything but want constant access to ""content."" No great loss, honestly.",2023-07-10 16:07:06,non_avian,4,NEGATIVE 639,"In that case, the company responsible for providing the data to OpenAI should be the primary target, correct? But they likely won't be able to achieve anything on that front, so instead they go after OpenAI. Won't it matter under which assumptions the product was acquired then? If the company selling the data assured their customers of them adhering to copyright law for all of their datasets, and thus assurance was somewhat credible, what exactly is the angle here? I suppose they must prove that it is reasonable for OpenAI to have known about the material they acquired having been acquired illegally at the time of purchase. Perhaps the seller never made any such claims, in which case OpenAI might have failed in its due diligence or something. If they did however, then it doesn't seem so clear cut. They would also need to prove that the data that was sold by this seller was acquired illegally by them, or not. I don't think it's as easy as saying we didn't give them permission to use our work. Who knows where the data originally came from. Maybe they acquired it themselves from a third seller, who claimed it was acquired legitimately etc. Maybe some seller, at some point actually bought the book legitimately, with a proper license to read, use and resell it, which I think is unlikely since the claimants would be aware of that possibility. Or perhaps it was just stolen. In any case, one would need to actually check where exactly and how the data that was sold to OpenAI was initially acquired, or not? Is it enough to just say we didn't give anyone permission but the book somehow ended up in their possession so now they owe us? Is the chain and nature of acquisition irrelevant here? If it is not, then I struggle to see how the claimants will provide any decent evidence on this given that they seem unwilling to even go after the initial seller of the data. I don't know much about the laws in the US, so I'm just curious really. It seems like a pretty shortsighted claim imo, but I don't know how copyright law works in the US anyway, so maybe it's not as hopeless a claim as I think it is.",2023-07-10 18:19:39,Patapotat,2,NEGATIVE 640,Not really. It's already settled law that web-scraping illegal content doesn't open a company to liability.,2023-07-10 20:10:57,MaterialistSkeptic,1,NEGATIVE 641,RIP Wikipedia,2023-07-10 14:07:16,GeneralMuffins,16,NEGATIVE 642,"> That does seem to be the side Sarah is fighting for right now, yes. No; her lawsuit is about the copyright infringement that happened prior to the AI summarizing the book.",2023-07-10 17:01:54,dank_the_enforcer,5,NEGATIVE 643,"The claim is the used a third party that used a fourth party that is known to have Some pirated books and because the fourth party has them then **obviously** chatGPT used stolen work knowingly, regardless of the third party might or might not have had legal access to it through a Fifth party. Or that the third party didn't sign something saying all material was legally gained and therefore the responsibility and fault of the third party if it wasn't.",2023-07-11 00:47:55,hawklost,2,NEGATIVE 644,"was this response written by your ""ai"" because it makes no sense and you as a human posting it had that chance to vet",2023-07-11 05:07:34,BeeOk1235,1,NEGATIVE 645,When did this happen?,2023-07-11 00:03:45,AnOnlineHandle,1,NEGATIVE 646,"> How did they obtain the training data? Through piracy, according to the article.",2023-07-10 17:05:44,dank_the_enforcer,3,NEGATIVE 647,"I guess in in this situation, Silverman and her colleagues might be hoping that the judge in their case does not adopt the same precedent set by Japanese courts in their interpretation of copyright law related to the sourcing of training data.",2023-07-10 14:20:26,GeneralMuffins,1,NEGATIVE 648,It's all content which is online. It has nothing to do with copyright concerns because they're not distributing it.,2023-07-10 14:02:33,AnOnlineHandle,0,NEGATIVE 649,Did you buy a copy of every book you've read from a library?,2023-07-10 14:32:15,timschwartz,-4,NEGATIVE 650,"Again you’re jumping to content Which is the crux of the argument. But I’m not saying you can use characters in new settings. From what I can tell (and I work with machine learning for vfx so I know a bit about it) - Ai “learns” a lot like humans do. And the idea of placing copyright on peoples names - so for example “write me a Sarah Silverman joke” Makes sense to me… BUT placing laws against having large language models ingest your work and then build on that by combining some aspects with many other works doesn’t make sense - this, seems transformative to me, in the same way humans consume content and then write a “new” sitcom that follows the same structure as all other sitcoms The same goes for all art (Midjourney etc)",2023-07-10 14:51:00,canadianmatt,1,NEGATIVE 651,"Regarding the gathering of the training dataset, the argument will center around the legal precedent of [Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc) (Google is allowed to scan all copyrighted books in existence so people can look up passages from them, as long as they don't just offer up the entire book for reading). Copyright is primarily concerned with whether an author's commercial profit was harmed by someone distributing infringing copies of it, not with whether a copy of it was originally ""used"" for some commercial purpose. The case regarding the AI's output, is already largely covered by my previous post. For example if you prompt StableDiffusion to create an image and it creates one, then you can try to point at one specific image that you think it is 90% identical to, but otherwise you can't just say that it is a derivative because the billions of pictures that went into the training model might have been copyighted, but so little data of each has gone into it that you can't even point at what is it a derivative of. The same applies to ChatGPT. If you prompt it to write a certain text, and the resulting output is obviously not a duplication of any specific existing text, or so similar that that if a human wrote it you would have a clear case, then your case doesn't become stronger based on claims about the AI storing data from the sources that it works with. Both because it doesn't matter to the case, and because like I said the data stored is trivially small so you would be making a case against yourself.",2023-07-11 16:52:33,Genoscythe_,3,NEGATIVE 652,Thank you. Approved!,2023-07-11 20:40:02,CrazyCatLady108,1,POSITIVE 653,"I mean, OpenAI is selling priority access subscriptions to ChatGPT and is looking at further ways to generate profit from it. That would make a Fair Use defence with research as the stated goal maybe a bit difficult I think? It could be argued that since OpenAI is monetising the model, the authors who's work was taken to create the model ought to at least receive compensation. Even if it is merely the cost of a single copy of her books, that might lead to a landslide of copyrights holders getting their own little share. And with the number of titles in their training set, that would result in quite massive fees, and extra costs to handle this, regardless. While I must stress that I'm not a lawyer, if they have illegally acquired a copy of her book in order to create something that generates revenue for them, I think she does have a case. I guess you could compare it to using software for financial gain without having a commercial license.",2023-07-10 17:05:49,TgCCL,6,NEGATIVE 654,"Not really it's a ""bad faith"" case that will probably be won on ignorance with a side order of ludditism. By ""clear that up"" do you really mean ""stifle innovation""?",2023-07-10 12:14:48,kaos95,-35,NEGATIVE 655,">I guess if ""large language model training"" constitutes commercial use it is up to the courts to decide. There's definitely an argument to be made there, but as of right now there is no legal precedent to claim that it does. are book review sites making money?",2023-07-12 22:03:19,ninjasaid13,1,NEGATIVE 656,Commercial and personal use are different,2023-07-10 14:29:03,jdino,2,NEGATIVE 657,"I would usually agree with that statement, but you can't go to Adobe and tell it to make an image based on someone's style with a single prompt. It's like if Adobe would have a filter that imitates a specific artist without licensing such filter.",2023-07-10 15:42:58,MindTheGapless,3,NEGATIVE 658,But musicians can't sue for that. Like that Ed Sheeran case that was recently dismissed.,2023-07-10 14:41:22,takeitinblood3,3,POSITIVE 659,"Because a human can be influenced by what's learned, but can't effortlessly create a perfect imitation of someone else's style. I'm not against AI using available data, what I feel it's wrong is the capability of using that data and allowing a human to create effortlessly a copy or derivative work of someone else's work. Without the original data created by a human, the AI wouldn't be able to do anything of the sort. This gives value to what an artist creates. How many cases have there been where someone makes a tune using the music style of another artist and it has been deemed as infringing. There shouldn't be any difference with any type of art.",2023-07-11 00:38:06,MindTheGapless,1,NEGATIVE 660,"They admitted last year that they had a database, I believe they termed it 'book2' at the time, of roughly 300,000 books. A judge could force them to reveal whether this was part of it. ​ If you use ChatGPT you can very easily tell that it was trained using the book itself, i.e. you can get it to create a summary of chapter by chapter summary of a book and get extremely granular if you wish on something popular like ASOIAF.",2023-07-10 16:16:07,HalfLifeII,3,NEGATIVE 661,Why not explain how AI works then professor,2023-07-10 15:55:59,FaerieQueene510,-7,NEGATIVE 662,Yeah those characters and their stories are a lot different than Harry Potter which is why no lawsuits have been made by Rowling or any of these authors against another. I'm not sure you understand how this works.,2023-07-10 16:36:11,FaerieQueene510,-3,NEGATIVE 663,"> There is absolutely no way it could have some of the details that it does of something like A Game of Thrones from online reviews/summaries. Yes, there absolutely is. All it would even need is A Wiki of Ice and Fire. Then add in some forums where there are threads with hundreds of pages of theories, speculation, debates, analysis, etc. I think you have underestimated the internet’s ability to break down and analyze every part of every work of popular fiction in excruciating detail.",2023-07-10 18:22:26,,5,NEGATIVE 664,"> When the computer reads 14 doorstops it remembers. There are entire papers dedicated to trying to get AI to reproduce its inputs and failing, by committed research teams of multiple domain experts working fulltime. When trying to train on just one image, an AI image generator will break down before getting close, because that's not how they work. The closest you can get are a few over-represented examples with massive bias in the training data, like a dodgy version of a famous painting or movie poster, and then it's still all wrong, and people are committing far more copyright infringement by copying and pasting onto imgur or something.",2023-07-10 12:43:11,AnOnlineHandle,12,NEGATIVE 665,"But that's what I'm saying. It doesn't remember in the way that you mean. It has a list of all English words, and it assigns weights to each of those words' relationships with the other ones. So when I prompt 'write about tomatoe soup in the style of Robert Jordan', it's going to have stronger associations with certain adjectives than other authors, and once it picks a subject, it's going to have highly weighted associations that the next part of the sentence after the subject is related to clothing. Etc. It's much closer to ""having the feel"" than to rote text recall. It's all about word association, not memorization. When it goes through the doorstoppers it's reinforcing those associations by increasing the weight value between words (and their order) as it scans them. Those exact sentences are thrown away once the associations have been strengthened.",2023-07-10 12:48:33,Zalack,8,NEGATIVE 666,"I don't think for a second that creatives will become obsolete. Certain professions will be at risk, but that's been the case since the industrial revolution. Also, ""at-risk"" doesn't mean all positions suddenly disappear one day, but it does mean that if you're a student studying UX you might want to have a backup plan as well. >the link you provided only helps the argument of those against AI ""Against AI"" isn't a viable stance, just like ""against automation"" has never been a viable stance. It's here & it's only going to get better over time. And I am in no way advocating one way or the other on the ethics of AI - it will absolutely be used for profit at the expense of people - another tale as old as the industrial revolution. That's a different discussion, but both are inevitable outcomes. The only stance I'm taking is that it's going to be pointless to treat AI like it's something to be negotiated away. That ship has sailed, that bell can't be un-rung, pick whatever metaphor you like - AI is here & improving every day. And AI absolutely will be able to do some of the same jobs that only creative people have been able to do up to now - so the next question becomes, how do you adapt to that new reality, not how do you stop it from happening. If you're going to advocate for something associated with this, it should be universal basic income, $40 minimum wages, etc. THAT'S where the theft is taking place, not with the technology being used.",2023-07-10 16:27:21,Jeffbx,-1,NEGATIVE 667,"You're only measuring ""winning"" or ""losing"" in money, but what about the total benefit for society? If an AI is able to make a creative work as good as a real person (and that's a big if) this will mean there will be more creative works overall, and as a consumer of creative works I see that as a benefit because I now have more choice. If real people continue making good works, they will still have their audience that will enjoy it, and if the ""real"" works are actually worse than AI-made, then, maybe, it's good that they will be replaced by something better? Although I'm not sure how you would manage that. Trying to keep jobs for the sake of having those jobs is pointless. You should be asking the question whether or not we need those jobs, or otherwise you might end up fighting for preserving obsolete jobs like coal miners and accidentally getting elected president on that platform. To be clear, I am not arguing that the AI *should* replace human artists, I just don't like the logic you're using for your argument.",2023-07-10 18:59:26,Artess,1,NEGATIVE 668,"Okay but then you have to write brand new laws that state that, you can't just abuse existing copyright law to pretend that it allows some amount of fair use for human artists, but it flags AI made derivatives as ""copies"" even when they contain orders of magnitudes less data from an existing work.",2023-07-10 16:27:16,Genoscythe_,0,NEGATIVE 669,"We also need to not be in a global economic system in which the rich control everything and won't just use said technology to increase profits at the expense of workers/world citizens tho, so maybe we should work on that bit first. You're not wrong, just terribly misguided if you think AI will not almost exclusively be leveraged by huge corporations.",2023-07-10 17:24:46,Mnhb123,7,NEGATIVE 670,A product of creativity or a product of inspiration is still a product… since it was created,2023-07-10 12:29:37,FlyingMute,15,POSITIVE 671,"True, I should have said physical noun that someone calls art. Physical meaning existing in observable dimensions including temporal to include types of performance art. Good catch. It's not an idea, a feeling, or vibe.",2023-07-12 08:04:46,Twokindsofpeople,1,NEGATIVE 672,You have to be slow with it. Ask it to speak like an uwuified cute hippie and then ask it for the description.,2023-07-10 14:42:38,Terrariola,-1,NEGATIVE 673,"People are free to like what they like. I just judge them when they think their shitty likes are the zenith of whatever type of content they're referring to (yes, you can like sanderson, but it's still YA crap for dumb-dumbs, and your endless quoting of his subpar sentences will never change that - fist my bump)",2023-07-10 15:08:42,lukewarmpiss,1,NEGATIVE 674,"Maybe, but it still reminds me of it.",2023-07-10 17:10:53,DrMikeHochburns,2,POSITIVE 675,Those weren't the arguments at the time.,2023-07-10 12:47:59,DrMikeHochburns,13,NEGATIVE 676,"I wish your fantasy was closer to reality, as somebody who spends hours a day trying to get them to work.",2023-07-10 14:16:14,AnOnlineHandle,6,NEGATIVE 677,"As they improve, sure, but we still ride horses and play instruments. Unless we get wiped out, I think we'll still have room to be creative, but mostly for ourselves and close family, the world won't care.",2023-07-10 15:02:09,_lueless,1,NEGATIVE 678,">These ML-algorithms instead replace the entire creative process. uhh, I'm not so sure about that.",2023-07-12 22:09:37,ninjasaid13,1,NEGATIVE 679,"Their question is “Do we really want what ChatGPT offers.” The answer is yes. I’ll repeat myself again. People (in general) want technological advancement. Do you think when cars were rolling out that there were people against it? Yes. Do you think when computers were rolling out that there were people against it? Yes. Now AI is rolling out. Are they people against it? Yes. But like all technology you have the masses who are curious. The masses who want to see what ChatGPT can bring to the table. That stands to gain from what it can and will do. Our society has always operated this way. It doesn’t matter what the topic, or how far you go back. Humans are smart and we strive and get paid for innovation. But I know you and everyone else here understands that. Like cars or computers before this, there will always be people who doomsay anything. Sometimes they are right. But we won’t know if we have Skynet until we have Skynet.",2023-07-11 03:10:34,Hanyabull,2,NEGATIVE 680,"Why does technology replace anything? Because it is cheaper, faster, and higher quality than the average example. The cream will always rise to the top. It’s the mediocre to poor versions of anything that is really at danger.",2023-07-10 19:06:24,Hanyabull,0,NEGATIVE 681,"Cars are only a tiny percentage of the fossil fuels we burned. You think we shouldn't have built trains, cities, factories, electricity plants? Tbh I do sometimes wonder if these 'short term' improvements will lead to long term extinction. But at the same time I'm pretty happy I didn't die from my appendicitis when I was 17 because the industrial revolution brought us modern medicine",2023-07-10 11:09:15,Cajum,32,POSITIVE 682,"We shouldn't have mega yachts and mega private planes, more like.",2023-07-10 11:58:39,verifitting,4,NEGATIVE 683,Electric cars isn't a new invention. It was mostly Ford's doing that caused the gas powered cars to overtake the electric car.,2023-07-10 14:26:08,Falsus,-3,NEGATIVE 684,"> Human intellect is the tech it looks to replace RIP the unmourned human hands and feet that were replaced a log time ago.",2023-07-10 14:48:11,seeingeyefish,6,POSITIVE 685,"I think you are missing the point. Without technological advancement, we are still cavemen. We still die at age 15 and fight bears with our hands. Technology isn’t something we can cherry pick only the good stuff and pass on the bad stuff. The only way we are going to get off this planet and avoid the day the Earth dies is through technological advancement. Granted it’s a long ways away, and there is a chance that we nuke ourselves into oblivion, but people here thinking we can somehow choose the direction humanity goes. We can’t. Technology improves and we hope it points us in the right direction more times than it doesn’t. AI might be the tool that opens up speed of light travel. AI might end up being Skynet. No way to know until it happens. The only thing I can guarantee is we will find out eventually what AI can do because humanity won’t stop trying to improve.",2023-07-11 02:08:23,Hanyabull,1,NEGATIVE 686,"The South had to ""free"" their slaves after losing the Civil War in America, however the farms and plantations were still owned by the the one's who had own them. They ended up back on the very same farms and plantations because Reconstruction failed, as severely uncompensated sharecroppers. Now along came Technology! The Cotton Harvester! Oh boy! PROGRESS! Surely life would be easier for the freed Black workers now! Wrong. The Cotton Harvester arrived, and once the Black workers began asking for living wages, rights and suffrage, instead of acquiescing, those in power ""adopted technology"" and decided to fire their black workers and use the Cotton Harvester instead. With this new technology, Black workers had lost all leverage they had in their labor and were forced to migrate out of the south, hence we have ""The Great Migration"" and zero equality and equity for Black people or minorities in general. Technology means nothing if you have no power.",2023-07-10 21:35:14,,2,NEGATIVE 687,"using tools like Photoshop is completely different than using ChatGPT and StableDiffusion to do everything for you. art isn't about churning things out on an assembly line.",2023-07-10 12:37:40,GenericGaming,7,NEGATIVE 688,The undo button is a digital eraser. The only artists who want AI to grow and dominate are those whose art doesn't sell and will want to use AI to create as much stuff with little effort in order to make a profit.,2023-07-10 16:29:46,FaerieQueene510,1,NEGATIVE 689,"There are two types of creatives - those who are terrified of AI and those who are experimenting with or already using AI to enhance their existing workflows, help automate tedious tasks, serve as a jumping off point, etc. AI might be able to replace both eventually, but I’d rather be in the second group right now.",2023-07-10 18:03:28,,1,POSITIVE 690,"okay but like, the art we're talking about is novels. if you want an AI to write a textbook or whatever, go ahead. it'll probably be a load of shit and would be better if it was created by someone who knew what they were doing. the subject of this conversation is to do with novels which ARE an expression of self. boiling my argument down to ""well, technically a corporate logo is art"" removes the context of which my argument is based upon.",2023-07-10 13:30:23,GenericGaming,6,NEGATIVE 691,"Actually in your example it's the mom and pop's expression of self that's the focus, not the artist they will hire or the AI they can use. Mom and pop will sit down with each other and discuss what the girl looks like, her hair, her clothes, her expression, if the coffee she's drinking is iced or hot, the colors and placement of the girl on the logo, etc.",2023-07-10 16:27:35,FaerieQueene510,-2,POSITIVE 692,"""Creatives"" is a big umbrella covering everyone from corporate employees churning out web design illustrations, advertisement content and such that they don't get to own afterwards, to novelists indeendently puring their heart out in a book that they self-publish. Within the field of ""creatives"" there is still a lot of rote labor that could be done more efficiently. There have been lots of instances of labor-saving techniques in the entertainment industry, that have allowed fewer workers to produce more content, and it was generally fine in the sense that it has neither killed the borader human spirit of creativity for it's own sake, nor did it crash the commercial viability of creatives in general, just specific fields within it while opening up others.",2023-07-10 13:19:23,Genoscythe_,6,NEGATIVE 693,"Honestly I don’t really care if a human or A.I could write the next Lord of the Rings level story with all the depth of lore and endless books that a machine can create. Maybe that’s just me, and maybe authors aren’t too keen on that outcome, but meh.",2023-07-10 16:39:12,RifleEyez,1,NEGATIVE 694,"No, it's not. It's the creative landscape getting changed by innovation. Just like all the rest of human endeavor since we subjugated fire. Automation increases our collective output, providing more of everything for everyone. It's a path to every individual who was ever terrified of a Skynet future having their own R. Daneel Olivaw. Simply because how capitalist economies manage that prosperity is an unmitigated shitshow does not make it the fault of innovation. It was a French innovation which provided the world with the innovation to deal with dozen or so families now hoarding half the world's wealth after all.",2023-07-10 15:24:14,xmagusx,0,POSITIVE 695,"Because their work is being sold as training data by a third party company that collects any and all content they can find on the internet, which they do not own or have a license for to be used in this manner. If your work is used to train such an algorithm, especially for-profit, you *deserve* to be asked for your consent at the very least, ideally with recompense for such a service.",2023-07-10 22:23:54,KronosCifer,1,NEGATIVE 696,"I read the complaint, and they're not claiming that ChatGPT has created derivative works. They're claiming that ChatGPT can generate somewhat accurate summaries of the copyrighted work. If that violates copyright law, say goodbye to film reviews and book clubs. For that matter, moderation on this sub is going to need to tighten up quite a bit LOL. This lawsuit is a joke, just not quite as funny as Silverman's usual material. Almost, though.",2023-07-10 17:19:12,anotherlevl,2,NEGATIVE 697,"> Still with the example of reprinting and selling, which obviously isn’t allowed, would I be able to get around it by rewriting it from memory rather than direct duplication? You could write something in the same style, and that would be fine. Now, if you publish it, you might get into trouble. But that would be the end user of the AI that makes that decision - the AI itself doesn't publish anything. This is the same as if I were to ask an expert in the field of Harry Potter. I can query his mind, come up with my own story based on his knowledge. All this would be fine - but I might end up in trouble if I publish it, but the expert is not involved with that step so he's in the clear.",2023-07-10 13:48:43,_PurpleAlien_,6,NEGATIVE 698,">I don’t believe you can just write and sell your own version of Star Wars unless you make it sufficiently different from the original. The bottom line is that it is the sufficient difference that matters, not the method of copying. Going out of your way to recreate the entire dialogue of Star Wars and getting it 90% right would be infringement, but using one line in your movie from Star Wars that you want to reference, is okay, even though they are both copied by the same method (your brain remembering it. At the same time, digitally copying the entire video file of a star wars movie can be infringing, but digitally remixing splices of less than 0.1% of a Star Wars movie into your film at key moments, would be Fair Use, even if they both use the same computer technology for copying. Similarly, ""The AI has been trained on the text"" is not inherently infringement, what determines it is whether or not the output comes accross as a direct duplicate of the source or close enough. And the reality is that it doesn't, ChatGPT doesn't duplicate entire specific novels.",2023-07-10 21:10:32,Genoscythe_,1,NEGATIVE 699,so we agree. its not microsofts company and they didnt create chatgpt.,2023-07-10 19:55:13,saltyshart,1,NEGATIVE 700,Where did I give legal advice?,2023-07-11 09:13:34,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 701,"I misunderstood you then. To be fair to me, a transformer AI won't regurgitate input generally. The way a transformer topology AI works is that is establishes statistical relationships between tokens (which can be any number of things -- frequently it is substrings shorter than a whole word.) It is not actually capable of reproducing verbatim specific works unless the dimensionality of the model is massive compared to the training data.",2023-07-11 01:06:21,hide_my_ident,5,NEGATIVE 702,Chat gpt has a subscription to spark notes,2023-07-11 14:36:59,,1,POSITIVE 703,"When you commit identity theft, does the person you stole from suddenly forget their own name?",2023-07-11 02:21:22,ary31415,4,NEGATIVE 704,">This is true even if the work is original and the similarity is a coincidence This is demonstrably false. Can you find an example? One of the keys to copyright law is that you have to prove the defendant had access to your work.",2023-07-11 06:36:30,podcastcritic,0,NEGATIVE 705,"I assume they are making a point, the other poster they responded to is the one who brought up video game code. The “content” (code in this context) doesn’t really matter strictly speaking. The sticking point they are trying to make is, a license fee needed to be paid for any IP content they used to train the AI.",2023-07-12 04:16:13,Collector_of_Things,1,NEGATIVE 706,"The ingestion is the breach of the license. It's not a licensed use. (Actually they have no license at all, which is why it's infringement). At least that's the argument. You looking at code on a game you licensed is not really an analogous situation. You have a license, you're not using it in a way that is commercially impacting the licensor.",2023-07-10 23:52:57,DizzyFrogHS,2,NEGATIVE 707,"it actually does, on a strict interpretation lol, we all just hand wave it and pretend not to notice because copyright is based on the statute of anne from 1710",2023-07-11 09:32:51,sebmojo99,0,POSITIVE 708,"Yes, it does mean exactly that. It's just that certain things are rarely prosecuted, while doing things at certain scale might trigger such action.",2023-07-11 13:02:01,Testo69420,0,NEGATIVE 709,"Having something in memory IS copying. Also, as I said, it's unlikely that they streamed this data to the AI and had local, permanent copies of it downloaded before the training process. >When you read a book the contents are not copied into your brain Yes, they are. They're just deleted rather quickly. The same goes for memory. >I'm not sure why you are making a big deal about what's basically nomenclature. Because that's how the law on this works. Loading something into memory IS copying it (because that's what is actually happening). The fact that you're deleting it later since memory is volatile doesn't change that you copied the data before you'll inevitable clear your memory. This, among other things, is why streaming copyrighted works can run into legal issues. Because even streaming makes a copy of said works in memory.",2023-07-11 13:05:27,Testo69420,0,NEGATIVE 710,"nah it's all copying, but if ai using it is illegal so is almost everything we do every day on the internet.",2023-07-11 09:33:29,sebmojo99,-1,NEGATIVE 711,and im a supreme court justice so i trump you,2023-07-11 00:44:51,queerhistorynerd,-4,POSITIVE 712,[gelöscht],2023-07-11 01:10:41,,0,POSITIVE 713,"> Yes they can say anything but they will have to prove that was the case. Actually it's the reverse. The accuser must prove that it was the case that they accessed and used an illegal copy. You cannot just make wild accusations without proof after all.",2023-07-11 00:15:37,hawklost,2,NEGATIVE 714,">Then you’d have to prove that, which you really can’t. No, the accuser must prove that their rights were transgressed, it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence.",2023-07-11 00:39:38,Kravego,3,NEGATIVE 715,"Libraries don't actually pay for all their books. A good amount of them are donated. No, you shouldn't.",2023-07-10 22:05:18,VeeVeeLa,3,NEGATIVE 716,Holy fuck. I'm dumb.,2023-07-10 16:01:38,atchet,25,NEGATIVE 717,Sorry. I meant that there is no shortage of posts on there asking how to read better/faster.,2023-07-10 16:23:53,Snoo57923,-2,NEGATIVE 718,"That's pretty easy when they have to do discovery and openai will have to show if they did or did not steal the book. Blessing and a curse of a data company, if you keep records of everything",2023-07-10 18:56:06,saltyshart,0,POSITIVE 719,they are 100% commercial.,2023-07-10 17:07:37,BeeOk1235,12,NEGATIVE 720,">i think this is a pretty open and shut fair use case. Well the now numerous lawsuits from many sectors prove its not an open and shut case. >It can't actually reproduce the work, just a summary of the work. How do you know that? Have you seen the source code? The software may well have the capability to regurgitate but the devs limited responses to only summaries. >It doesn't have any kind of chilling effect on the sales of the work because it's not reproducing the work. Sales can still be harmed if a user can get the AI to produce a new work that effectively contains all the contents of Silverman's book. The recent glut of AI generated books on Amazon is proof that similar works can be auto-generated. >And as far as I'm aware none of these language models are commercial, they're research projects. Regardless if the creator intended AI to only be for a research project, if others can use it in a commercial fashion, and the AI creators have not done nothing to specifically limit the ability of those people to do so, then the AI is responsible. That's like saying ""all I did was create the drugs and left them on a street corner for research purposes, it's not my fault that people then came and got the drugs.""",2023-07-10 17:14:18,kalasea2001,5,NEGATIVE 721,"> commercial use of stolen goods. Nope. The claim is copyright infringement.",2023-07-10 23:31:53,crazysoup23,2,NEGATIVE 722,">They knowingly accessed an illegal site. That's not a thing. There aren't ""illegal sites"". That may appear to be a technicality, but this case is all about technicalities. Those things matter. Accessing a site that happens to distribute material in violation of copyright is not, in and of itself, illegal. Nor are copyright laws structured the same way that laws around theft are. The two categories are materially different, and drawing simple analogies will lead you to incorrect conclusions in a number of cases. The plaintiffs may very well win this; but it wouldn't be as simple as this statement presents.",2023-07-10 20:41:07,KamikazeArchon,6,NEGATIVE 723,"knowingly accessed a site that had illegal data, they are not obliged to vet the internet... if they want to say they did it with intent to steal, they will have to prove intent. Gonna be tough.",2023-07-10 23:57:26,Jiggawatz,1,NEGATIVE 724,"""Sorry, Lil Billy. The theatre didn't get the proper licensing for Moana, and singing that song shows your brain is just riddled with thought crime. Don't worry though, bud. We'll take ya down to the station and use the ole Transorbital stick to get you back in compliance.""",2023-07-10 21:15:22,wagdaddy,-2,NEGATIVE 725,"> The claim is that they are liable, since they ingested the book as part of their work, without being covered by things like first sale doctrine, and the ingestion process itself not being fair use. actually yes... if somebody robs a bank and stuffs the money into an atm and you use it. There is no intent to steal, defraud etc... proving intent is going to be the tough part.",2023-07-10 23:58:34,Jiggawatz,3,NEGATIVE 726,"To be fair they don't hallucinate, they flat out lie, because they are hard coded to give answers even where they do not have a correct one. Gradient Descent is not actual intelligence, despite what the public might believe.",2023-07-10 18:54:56,Jiggawatz,1,NEGATIVE 727,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 19:16:47,,1,POSITIVE 728,Do you report back to the basilisk?,2023-07-10 14:44:28,jamieliddellthepoet,5,NEGATIVE 729,"You arent a computer (AI) and can build/utilize it in ""unintended"" ways.",2023-07-10 16:17:19,Zech08,2,NEGATIVE 730,"My problem with the art is much less for monetary gain and much less value. You see so many arguments saying “they’ll just have to find a new job like everyone during the Industrial Revolution,” which completely misses the point. 90% of artists work purely for passion, whether or not there is a financial side to it. People losing the passion to do anything is my main problem. Beyond that, I’m truly terrified of a future comparable to the humans in Wall-E. Ai will destroy capitalism, but when that happens, there will be no jobs, and we live on the real world where people are greedy and power hungry, so most people will inevitably be poor. You’ll have no job, which might sound great! But no money to do anything fun like travel. Not only can you not find work, but people will no longer have passion to create anymore when someone else can rip them off and steal and create their own content within seconds, doing no actual work. Beyond that… when we truly get to the apex of it. We’ll have endless, lazy content created in the millions. Everyone can craft their own movie, show, comic, novel, within seconds while doing no work. That will *flood* the world with content and you’ll no longer be able to keep track of anything. Nothing will trend for more than a day because so much is coming out. Eventually, everyone will be in their own world. All content will be created specifically for the individual. We’ll all be glued to our var headsets, watching content designed specifically for us, filled with ads from corporate overload. No one will be able to connect anymore, since no one is Cindy aiming the same content. There will be no fandoms. There will be no wait until the next big book or movie release. No more months of hype leading up to a favorite series, no more conventions for fandom, no more celebrations. And then you reach a point, which will happen very quickly, where *everything* has already been made. I look at something like r/midjourney and give them a year until they drain out all the creative juice from the world. The novelty of x character as drawn by y is neat at first, but when you can do it all at once, creativity is finished. The end. Hopefully I’m just old man yells at clouds. But also I’m not an old man.",2023-07-11 14:40:47,FrankyCentaur,1,NEGATIVE 731,"Many models can be spun up quickly/easily, go visit Huggingface, it's incredibly easy to spin up a model. You can even do it from within your code - it'll go and download the weights for you in a couple of minutes. You can run reasonable language model on a $1000 GPU, and you can rent a single GPU machine to train something larger for a reasonable amount of money. There are different classes of models, obviously, and GPT4 is on the higher end of that scale, but there's a lot of work being put into pruning and simplifying the nets with minimal loss of fidelity. And the way these train now is very inefficient, the brain is much more sample efficient, we're going to get a lot better at this. And there is a lot of effort being put into making federated training, where lots of people contribute small parts of the training to a larger effort. And there are a bunch of other efforts at making training more efficient. Here's a cool model by Karpathy (OpenAI/used to head up Tesla's efforts): https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT Or, see how stable diffusion and its huge number of offshoots has almost completely wiped away DALL-E, despite their initial lead. This whole field has a lot of low hanging fruit, and it's changing incredibly quickly on all fronts, it's a mistake to assume that how things work currently is how they will work. EDIT: the key thing I forgot to mention is that you don’t have to retrain large foundational models from scratch. By doing what’s called fine tuning, you can use what a heavyweight model has learned about the world, and teach it to do something specific that it hasn’t seen before, or have it output something different, and it’s much more accessible than training a full GPT. By doing that, you can do something pretty significant from your garage. And it’s part of why you’ve seen small groups doing so much with image generation. It’s part of why humans are so sample efficient - we’ve spent years learning a bunch, and learning something new just hooks into the things we already know, so it only takes a relatively small amount of learning. Versus teaching a newborn to paint, which is more like what training a model from scratch is like.",2023-07-10 16:12:52,prestodigitarium,0,NEGATIVE 732,">You say that like an AI can just be spun up on some old hard drive like a distribution of Linux. >If you’re trying to create an actually useful AI, you already need to spend a metric fuckton on service hosting costs. https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/4/no-moat/ >They go on to explain quite how much innovation happened in the open source community following the release of Meta’s LLaMA model in March: >> A tremendous outpouring of innovation followed, with just days between major developments (see The Timeline for the full breakdown). Here we are, barely a month later, and there are variants with instruction tuning, quantization, quality improvements, human evals, multimodality, RLHF, etc. etc. many of which build on each other. >> Most importantly, they have solved the scaling problem to the extent that anyone can tinker. Many of the new ideas are from ordinary people. The barrier to entry for training and experimentation has dropped from the total output of a major research organization to **one person, an evening, and a beefy laptop.** Emphasis mine.",2023-07-10 17:12:17,chiniwini,1,POSITIVE 733,"It's a reasonable analogy, they tokenize the text and that tokenized text excites some neurons more than others.",2023-07-10 16:02:14,prestodigitarium,1,POSITIVE 734,"Pretty sure a copyright lawyer would not agree with this, especially your hard lines on it being theft when used to train an AI. It’s hard to get a real lawyers with specialty in copyright law to give definitive answers on areas that have much more developed case law than this.",2023-07-10 16:33:02,prestodigitarium,2,NEGATIVE 735,"I don't agree with the practice either, just that I have seen some people mention that in various parts of the internet.",2023-07-10 16:10:33,Falsus,2,NEGATIVE 736,"Curiously there are people who accuse openai of stealing from Wikipedia, too.",2023-07-10 14:08:56,Lallo-the-Long,0,NEGATIVE 737,"The thing cannot reproduce the work, so other than maybe being able to claim they stole the copy of the book they used, what copyright infringement?",2023-07-10 17:06:47,Lallo-the-Long,0,NEGATIVE 738,"> It has nothing to do with copyright concerns because they're not distributing it. Copyright is literally the ""right"" to ""copy."" They copied the book without the right to, from a pirate site (see article). Distribution is another element of copyright law, but not the only one.",2023-07-10 17:06:39,dank_the_enforcer,0,NEGATIVE 739,There's a fundamental difference between reading a book and training a commercial use AI on a book.,2023-07-10 14:33:57,reflectioninternal,1,NEGATIVE 740,"One thing with AI models being transformative is that currently, you cannot copyright AI generated content (like you can’t copyright any art made in MidJourney). The transformative step isn’t being taken by a person, and isn’t protectable. That’s my understanding at least. In any case I think you hit on it with “large language models ingest your work” - it seems the question is whether that should that require consent of the original author. Yes people can take in content and come up with new transformative ideas, but we very specifically aren’t talking about people here.",2023-07-10 15:37:19,sunnbeta,2,NEGATIVE 741,The way you’re presenting this is as if there’s already precedent for this situation legally. That’s not the case. This will have to be fought over in court because the laws surrounding the issue haven’t caught up to the technology. Which is what’s happening here.,2023-07-10 14:14:42,elegantjihad,5,NEGATIVE 742,">It's like if Adobe would have a filter that imitates a specific artist without licensing such filter. Not sure if you've used Photoshop lately. https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/neural-filter.html Style Transfer.",2023-07-10 23:39:05,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 743,"Entirely different. Ed Sheeran's won his case by showing that he used a very common chord progression that is essentially not subject to copyright. For example I could play Am -> C -> G -> D and sing over it. I'd be creating a song and my lyrics would presumably be protected but the chord progression is so generic that Iof someone else played the same chord progression I would never be able to sue them. On the other hand, an author accusing someone of infringement based on the tone and style of their writing is totally unique to that author and is certainly copyrightable. A more appropriate comparison would be how no author can copyright certain story-telling elements that have been used forever. Like the ""Christ"" archetype - struggle, death, rebirth, redemption.",2023-07-10 15:09:40,Timmichanga1,3,NEGATIVE 744,"Neural Network type Machine Learning models try to find a generalized map of inputs x to outputs y. They do this by using many layers of input vectors being multiplied by weight matrices and then run through a non-linear function, since this is proven to be a universal function approximator. These weight matrices are then trained with data. We measure how ""well"" the output of our model when given real world input matches real world output by defining a ""loss"". How the loss function is defined varies from model to model. We then try to find values for our weight matrices where the loss is particularly small. This effectively means searching for minima in the loss space. We then update the weights using optimization algorithms like Gradient Descent or ADAM. In more advanced Neural Network structures like LLMs that are used for ChatGPT some additional neat tricks are used to ensure good generalization, like for example encoding inherent symmetries of the data in the structure.",2023-07-10 16:50:10,Nhefluminati,8,POSITIVE 745,I did elsewhere in the thread and was heavily downvoted for it.,2023-07-11 00:04:49,AnOnlineHandle,2,NEGATIVE 746,"So are stories generated by ChatGPT unless you specifically ask for a recreation of a specific story. I’m not sure you understand how this works. Yet the characters I listed all closely match your description of Larry, and several of them have been frequently called knockoffs of Harry Potter.",2023-07-10 16:39:49,,2,NEGATIVE 747,"We will see in the lawsuit about OpenAI what is actually in the Book1-3 datasets (if you don't think they're copyrighted hopefully that will be made public officially), but as far as Meta it's already confirmed they used a dataset of copyrighted works, not online discussion about that content. ​ Beyond that, LLMs heavily rely on the quality of the content they're fed. But that content is only discussion about these works. It's not the style of the author or a summary as much as an analysis so the prompts for summarizing a chapter or a particular scene or completing a paragraph doesn't rely on online analysis. The idea that they're purely using online discussion about books is comical to me, but we will see with the lawsuit if it is made public information for OpenAI, they've become extremely secretive since gaining popularity.",2023-07-10 18:55:00,HalfLifeII,-1,NEGATIVE 748,"Neither of us are lawyers and have no ability to say if this is abuse of the law or not. I agree that new laws need to be passed but I also wish I was a baller/a little bit taller. Not holding my breath on that, is what I'm saying.",2023-07-10 17:38:13,walterpeck1,1,NEGATIVE 749,"If the corps manage to make it illegal for people to make their own, by requiring licensing or helping maximalist copyright interpretations, then sure, but currently there’s a vibrant open source community improving and releasing models for free.",2023-07-10 20:24:36,prestodigitarium,0,POSITIVE 750,That's obviously not the definition I was using.,2023-07-10 12:32:31,T3chn0Punk,-1,NEGATIVE 751,"You do not understand this subject. I would refrain from speaking on the matter. Good day.",2023-07-10 21:22:58,,0,NEGATIVE 752,"It still seems like you're not answering the question at all. I know how technological advancement works. Why do YOU WANT chatGPT.. just because it exists now? That's not really an answer.",2023-07-11 03:38:43,Feroshnikop,1,NEGATIVE 753,But why do we need to replace one of the oldest forms of human expression with a soulless imitation? Because it’s cheaper than paying an actual artist?,2023-07-10 19:10:32,MrPookPook,4,NEGATIVE 754,They didn’t say trains and such are bad. Public transportation is very good especially when done right. I am glad we have more modernized medicine but I do think we could have even better medicine and literally everything to do with quality of life if the world was structured to live alongside nature rather than against it(or just not carefully thought out) or for profit.,2023-07-10 11:30:03,MajesticToebean,7,NEGATIVE 755,And that appendicitis will kill you financially if you live in the US.,2023-07-10 16:19:32,FaerieQueene510,1,NEGATIVE 756,We shouldn't. But there are much more cars than yatches and planes.,2023-07-10 11:59:59,,0,NEGATIVE 757,Ford wouldn't have done it if cars didn't exist.,2023-07-10 14:38:16,,1,NEGATIVE 758,It's wild you think those are comparable. Does thinking too hard make your head hurt?,2023-07-10 15:15:25,slickestwood,-7,NEGATIVE 759,"> using tools like Photoshop is completely different than using ChatGPT and StableDiffusion to do everything for you. Tools that do everything for you aren't even close to existing when you have real world requirements and don't just want samey very basic things. > art isn't about churning things out on an assembly line. Yes it absolutely is. Do you seriously imagine we wake up every day and have some magical experience writing and drawing and don't have to worry about money and it all goes swimmingly and is done on time and there's no stress or often working 18 hour days? The fantasy of art being some utopian magical activity is incredibly annoying. If it was then everybody would be doing it.",2023-07-10 12:38:58,AnOnlineHandle,12,NEGATIVE 760,100%,2023-07-11 00:02:39,AnOnlineHandle,2,POSITIVE 761,"Okay, but ChatGPT is ***not*** writing novels at the moment. That would be hypothetical. What we are actually talking about, is ChatGPT writing down the summaries of existing novels being infringement. Practically speaking, AI is replacing your job only if your job is to write down bullshit padded out texts about subjects that doesn't reaquire deep intelligent thought. Which DOES concern a lot of people, but those people are not the unbridled creative types baring their soul to the public. The idea that it is coming after the entire concept of creativity, is unwarranted.",2023-07-10 20:55:58,Genoscythe_,1,NEGATIVE 762,"But then either prompting an AI is also art, and AI just empowers them to practice it, or that process was never that artistic in the first place. The point is that AI is still only automating away the menial production process. If you want to creatively express yourself in any way, you are still allowed to do it, but a piece of the labor-intensive process of creating texts and pictures on demand, can be autpmated away in cases where ease of use and convenience are more important than personally controlling a complex artistic message.",2023-07-10 18:04:16,Genoscythe_,1,NEGATIVE 763,"In this case, it is removing small time rote labour that junior artists use to get into the industry. You cannot replace senior artists, but were creating a bottleneck where the little freelance jobs, album covers, dnd avatars, posters for a local event, are disappearing. Over the past half year, ive noticed that it gets worse and worse in the small art circle i frequent. You can no longer hold yourself above water and they barely already earned a living wage by doing these little jobs. They either do it themselves or AI prompters do it for cheaper.",2023-07-10 20:20:21,KronosCifer,1,NEGATIVE 764,"I do, because I want people to create for people for one. The other is because machines can create stuff in the blink of an eye. You wont be getting one lord of the rings, youll be getting thousands if not millions. A massive oversaturation of content youll have to sift through. Therell be one or two great lord of the rings among it for sure, but youll have to find them first in an ocean of mediocrity.",2023-07-10 20:07:21,KronosCifer,1,NEGATIVE 765,"Why does art need to be measured in productivity? It should never be in the first place. More productivity in terms of food and clothing? Nice and great, but art?",2023-07-10 20:14:54,KronosCifer,-1,NEGATIVE 766,"The previous comment I responded to is the one that talked about YouTube reviews being derivative works, which is just plainly incorrect. Can you link to the complaint so I can read it? It sounded like they were only using the “somewhat accurate summary” as evidence that it was trained on the works, not as the illegal thing… basically arguing that you shouldn’t be able to consume works into a content generating machine (essentially derivative creating, when prompted) without permission.",2023-07-10 18:54:06,sunnbeta,1,NEGATIVE 767,>Using AI is fine as long as you're not doing something like using AI to recreate Mickey Mouse and then trying to sell the Mickey Mouse you created.,2023-07-11 23:42:58,breakbeats573,1,NEGATIVE 768,Identity theft is also not theft. It's fraud.,2023-07-11 02:23:01,RevvyJ,12,NEGATIVE 769,"Sure, you can check out the case between Tom Petty and Sam Smith, since there are a lot of articles about it. They proved that they had not heard Tom Perry’s original song and came to an agreement, leading to them settling on a % royalty payment to Tom Petty",2023-07-11 06:48:02,frogtown98,3,NEGATIVE 770,"Right, my point was that AI can't see game code so it can never copy games the way it can copy books.",2023-07-12 05:01:20,monkeysuffrage,1,NEGATIVE 771,"Okay, imagine you're a litigator. Prove to me that the lisence was broken in a way that proves it breaks copyright reproduction laws. You seem to be purposefully missing the point. There simply isn't a way to measure the outcome of learning from a broken lisence. The AI doesn't reproduce her work. It learns from the work, then produces something wholly different.",2023-07-12 05:28:57,IShowerinSunglasses,0,NEGATIVE 772,"Well, I'd beat you in court if I wasn't ethically obligated to oppose it. Why not just daydream ways to best AI defenses in court if you actually care about this? It's about to happen, and I don't think there are many ways to stop it.",2023-07-12 08:45:21,IShowerinSunglasses,0,NEGATIVE 773,"In AI training, the full content of the book simply is overwritten by all of the other information it ingests. It is not a database, it's more like a, well, learning machine. It learns about the book but it can't give you the exact words from it. Try this yourself even with an open source AI like Llama 2 that's uncensored (ollama.ai has such a version) it simply does not remember enough about a particular book to output it word for word.",2023-08-08 13:23:40,zxyzyxz,1,NEGATIVE 774,That's self evident since more than likely that is the intent of Silverman's lawyers. At which point OpenAI must prove that their evidence is false by providing their own...whether it be sealed or unsealed.,2023-07-11 00:22:08,calahil,-1,NEGATIVE 775,"As an academic librarian, only a very, very small percentage of our books, databases, and other resources are provided by donation. Some libraries or special collections may rely more heavily on donations, but even the public libraries I know purchase far more than they receive as usable donations.",2023-07-10 23:17:06,arsabsurdia,0,POSITIVE 776,"Hahaha, it's all good. Easy to misunderstand tone online.",2023-07-10 16:05:45,non_avian,15,POSITIVE 777,"Oh, I've heard those. Sorry for misunderstanding",2023-07-10 16:29:03,non_avian,4,NEGATIVE 778,"except, and I might be wrong on this. Open AI scrapped basically most of the public internet up to a certain date.... public being the key word.",2023-07-10 23:53:12,Jiggawatz,0,NEGATIVE 779,"Oh? As far as I'm aware none of these are commercially available products. You can't buy an instance of chatgpt or pay to use server time, as far as I'm aware. Is that not true? Near as I can tell they're researching and developing the concept. One day, I'm sure there will be commercially available language models, and then this criteria of fair use won't be met anymore, but as far as i know that day is not today.",2023-07-10 17:31:41,Lallo-the-Long,-5,NEGATIVE 780,"Llama is gpl v3, so implementations of it could be commercial but it in itself isn't.",2023-07-10 18:29:11,enilea,1,NEGATIVE 781,">Well the now numerous lawsuits from many sectors prove its not an open and shut case. I don't know that that proves anything at all. >How do you know that? Have you seen the source code? The software may well have the capability to regurgitate but the devs limited responses to only summaries. I've followed a good amount of their research and that is just not how it works. Unless they're lying about how the thing fundamentally works in published research, which would be a whole other can of worms to open. >Sales can still be harmed if a user can get the AI to produce a new work that effectively contains all the contents of Silverman's book. The recent glut of AI generated books on Amazon is proof that similar works can be auto-generated. Derivative works are not copyright infringement. >Regardless if the creator intended AI to only be for a research project, if others can use it in a commercial fashion, and the AI creators have not done nothing to specifically limit the ability of those people to do so, then the AI is responsible. Certainly not. Just as gun manufacturers and car manufacturers are not held liable for the harm their creations do, a research team cannot be held liable for someone else modifying their work to do something it cannot do that is illegal. >That's like saying ""all I did was create the drugs and left them on a street corner for research purposes, it's not my fault that people then came and got the drugs."" No, it's like saying that this research project fits all the criteria of fair use so it falls under fair use.",2023-07-10 17:26:15,Lallo-the-Long,8,NEGATIVE 782,">In both claims, the authors say that they “did not consent to the use of their copyrighted books as training material” for the companies’ AI models. Their lawsuits each contain six counts of various types of copyright violations, negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. And from [the law firm's description](https://llmlitigation.com/) >Much of the mate­r­ial in the train­ing datasets used by OpenAI and Meta comes from copy­righted works—includ­ing books writ­ten by Plain­tiffs—that were copied by OpenAI and Meta with­out con­sent, with­out credit, and with­out com­pen­sa­tion.",2023-07-11 00:30:07,ReadyClayerOne,1,NEGATIVE 783,"Fair, and I am not an expert. So, how is it different than downloading from Pirate Bay? Haven't people been charged with that?",2023-07-10 22:55:22,tgrantt,1,NEGATIVE 784,"No, but they USED the data they retrieved from there",2023-07-11 00:27:42,tgrantt,0,NEGATIVE 785,It knows how LLMs work. It doesn't know how it specifically works at all.,2023-07-10 20:08:16,amplifizzle,1,NEGATIVE 786,So does a language model.,2023-07-10 16:25:44,Lallo-the-Long,0,NEGATIVE 787,"This is a bullshit academic argument. GPT was the first anyone found to be useful and that was after a 10 *billion* dollar investment into the platform by Microsoft. The larger point is that those academic language models which can be run on single GPUs or small clusters nobody cares enough about to sue for copyright infringement. OpenAI is a large entity with 10s of billions invested. People care about its money making potential enough to sue. And they should care. These are not the same thing and size does matter when talking about ""fair use"" of copyrighted material.",2023-07-10 17:00:28,,1,NEGATIVE 788,At a super basic level sure I guess it is.,2023-07-10 16:08:33,CaptainPigtails,0,NEGATIVE 789,"Ok, everyone, Mr. Wizard over here has all the answers. Take that to your next law school course on copyright. When you fail to pass the bar, because you answered the copyright set of questions incorrectly, ask the state bar association why.",2023-07-10 16:11:40,jonnysunshine,0,POSITIVE 790,"IANAL, but it's clear you are not one either. I worked with copyright issues for over a decade and my examples are clear cut and have definitively been used to protect copyright. AI technology depends upon it's developers to procure data to ""teach"" the AI how to perform actions. If the materials used are not sourced properly, ie. given permission by the copyright owner, then it is indeed theft. There is no ifs, ands, or buts, about it. You're fighting for an issue which you don't seem to have the background knowledge or skill set to resolve. That's not a personal attack, but one based upon what you've contributed to this discussion. Please, for the love of all that is good, do not attempt to ever defend your position in court. You will be raked over the proverbial coals by the opposition counsel and any judge schooled in copyright law will do the same.",2023-07-10 16:40:09,jonnysunshine,-1,NEGATIVE 791,"Word. Yeah, that's very frightening. I'm sure it will work out great for them.",2023-07-10 16:14:04,non_avian,0,POSITIVE 792,Yeah OpenAI are pretty open to the fact that Wikipedia formed a part of its core training data.,2023-07-10 14:14:57,GeneralMuffins,9,POSITIVE 793,"the complainants are saying the datasets containing their book's are fundamentally a source of copyright infringement. Quite frankly they should at a minimum have included EleutherAI as one of the defendants as they're the one's who collated the probable dataset in question. why they haven't I don't know, maybe they figured they'd take OpenAI and Meta to court but that doesn't seem like a winning strategy as that's literally Facebook and *Microsoft* money being thrown down against. So it seems to me this might be something done for performative reasons with the aim of getting a settlement.",2023-07-11 03:17:56,Thellton,1,NEGATIVE 794,"No, there isn't.",2023-07-10 14:43:42,timschwartz,-4,NEGATIVE 795,"Yeah exactly It’s interesting because the people are ”creating” the prompts! If you consider what Art (with a capital A) is, supposedly it’s the idea….coupled with the craft… But there are many artists who were not good craftspeople - example Leonard cohen was a singer!! (Song writer) And John Lennon couldn’t play nearly as well as And on the flip side you have “craftsmen” who were derided for not being artists - John Millais and John singer Sargent come to mind Edited: so the “idea” is “created” by the person making the prompt… and the craft is the machine??? Stan Lee is the “creator of Spider-Man” - the artist who designed his costume and Peter’s look… well I don’t know his name - but he was pretty salty about not being called a creator.",2023-07-10 15:46:39,canadianmatt,0,NEGATIVE 796,"Nope, fully aware that the reactionaries (who would have thought the creatives would turn out to be the reactionaries . . . that shit was not on my bingo board) have literally been salivating to get a good court case to turn this tech off. They are literally using copywriter law as a hammer for something that isn't a nail (which has in fact been proved in court, those study guides in the 90's got sued by the textbook publishers and lost, actually fairly similar case). This is all coming from some billionaires that don't like AI and are funding a huge fucking smear campaign against it (you **need** people to work jobs to keep being a billionaire), they are hitting law schools and liberal arts colleges too.",2023-07-10 14:38:40,kaos95,-9,NEGATIVE 797,"I don't need to be a lawyer to know that copyright is primarily concerned with degrees of copying, not with whether or not the copying is done by a human hand. If a human is allowed to write a novel, and in it, quote a sentence from another novel that makes up 0.01% of it's content, and that's Fair Use, then there is no piece of copyight law that would spell it out that an AI model trained on millions of novels, and uses 0.0000000001% of the data from each of them to set up a language model, the resulting new text is infringing on either one of training materials ""because it isn't a human"". ***That's simply not a thing***, and even if you could find an elaborate legal justification for it, it is most definitely NOT some sort of intuitive, open-and-shut case that ""AI bros don't want to understand.""",2023-07-10 17:55:47,Genoscythe_,1,NEGATIVE 798,Sadly open source communities don't have the resources of multinational conglomerates...,2023-07-10 21:11:36,Mnhb123,1,NEGATIVE 799,"""Because at the end theres a thing"" See, it's about a product. Thank you for validating you dont understand art and think of it as a product. According to you it’s a product, because at the end there’s a thing. Ergo it was created. What definition *were* you using?",2023-07-10 12:57:40,FlyingMute,12,NEGATIVE 800,"Ok let me try this a different way: Yes, I want ChatGPT and see where it can take us. I am curious to see the potential of AI, and consider it no different than any other technological advancement before it. I understand it scares some people, and like all things has the potential to backfire, but I also believe nothing is going to stop it either way, and plan to be on the side that adapts to it than just cries and complains. If this isn’t clear enough, I don’t have anything else left to say.",2023-07-11 04:07:25,Hanyabull,1,NEGATIVE 801,"Cheaper, faster, better. You can call it whatever you want, but nothing on our planet is exempt from humanity wanting it cheaper, faster, and more importantly **better**.",2023-07-10 19:12:34,Hanyabull,-1,POSITIVE 802,"I just don't think it works like that. Back when cars were invented, no one imagined the problems we are dealing with now - they were slow, noisy and impractical. Just like when the internet was invented, people thought it was something for nerds at universities, no one considered it might one day be full of misinformation that change elections or rot teenagers brains. When we invent new things, we get the good with the bad and then we try to correct the mistakes. (Applying this logic to AI is kinda terrifying now that I think about it) And we used to live along nature, and lots of people died - all the time. We didn't try to conquer nature because we wanted to destroy it, we did it because it was killing lots of us and people didn't like their family members not returning from a hunt. Now we need to correct what we did without giving up (most of) the benefits we gained",2023-07-10 11:43:28,Cajum,4,NEGATIVE 803,If we are looking at the amount of people that pollutes then mega yachts and places causes way more pollution per person than any car owning person ever could do.,2023-07-10 14:27:21,Falsus,1,NEGATIVE 804,Only when I count past ten! I’ve been pretty lucky to have a calculator in my pocket for years now.,2023-07-10 20:40:09,seeingeyefish,1,POSITIVE 805,What kind of art do you do?,2023-07-10 23:40:05,Subterania,1,NEGATIVE 806,">The idea that it is coming after the entire concept of creativity, is unwarranted. >Okay, but ChatGPT is not writing novels at the moment. so is the fear unwarranted or is it something that it's simply not doing at the moment but could in the future?",2023-07-10 21:06:19,GenericGaming,1,NEGATIVE 807,"It’s a tough one. Part of me thinks you’re right, the other part of me isn’t necessarily bothered about the author, in the sense that I don’t read the book and think “wow, this is great because it came from one guy”. Retrospectively I might think that about Tolkien, but I don’t think it impacts my enjoyment of the book. Perhaps if there was endless Lord of the Rings it might lose something, but if you told me AI wrote it I wouldn’t be like “nah it sucks”.",2023-07-11 20:03:23,RifleEyez,1,NEGATIVE 808,"Because art is a commodity. I understand people want to be high minded about it as a subject, nor do I deny it's power to move and uplift, but it's still also a commodity. AI helps to satisfy the market for a lot of ""meh, whatever; good enough"" corporate art that people want. High quality, human made things still retain value. The existence of a mass market paperback shat out of a print shop by the thousand doesn't erase the value of a hand bound, leather backed tome. It just means more people have books to read. So why is it a bad thing for more people to have more art, simply because the source makes it affordable?",2023-07-10 22:44:04,xmagusx,1,POSITIVE 809,"[Link to the complaint](https://llmlitigation.com/pdf/03223/tremblay-openai-complaint.pdf) ​ [Link to the summary of her book](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23869694-silverman-openai-complaint-exhibits?responsive=1&title=1)",2023-07-10 22:53:07,anotherlevl,2,POSITIVE 810,Legal advice is the giving of a professional or formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law in relation to a particular factual situation.,2023-07-12 03:34:49,crazysoup23,2,POSITIVE 811,"But the word 'theft' is right there in the name, because it's being used in a colloquial sense, just like when OC referred to the pirated books as theft. Someone has been robbed (again, this is clearly colloquial usage) of some amount of value, hence we use the word theft.",2023-07-11 02:27:43,ary31415,1,NEGATIVE 812,"A settlement is not an admission of guilt or a judicial decision. I pointed out that because a jury disregarded instructions in settling the Marvin Gaye / Blurred Lines lawsuit, the music industry has become an area where threatening lawsuits have become rampant. However the example you cited is not an example of copyright infringement since there was no trial or decision from a jury. You would need to find an example that involved a court declaring someone liable for copyright infringement without the plaintiff demonstrating that the defendant had access to their work.",2023-07-11 06:56:49,podcastcritic,2,NEGATIVE 813,Psh. Okay.,2023-07-12 08:59:25,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 814,Psh. Okay,2023-07-12 08:59:42,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 815,"There are still a portion of donated books, doesn't matter how many. My statement still stands.",2023-07-11 00:19:59,VeeVeeLa,1,NEGATIVE 816,Many people add **/s** (slash s) to their comment to signify that it was sarcasm. It helps misunderstandings like this one.,2023-07-10 18:20:03,PoniardBlade,0,POSITIVE 817,It's no problem. Have a great day!,2023-07-10 16:30:53,Snoo57923,1,POSITIVE 818,"According to their own site, OpenAI sells subscriptions for priority ChatGPT access and some other features for 20$/month. And they have stated that they want to make business plans available as well. They are absolutely commercial. [Link for context](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-plus)",2023-07-10 18:59:20,TgCCL,5,POSITIVE 819,The naivety is palpable.,2023-07-10 17:51:09,Whoretron8000,4,NEGATIVE 820,You're going to be disappointed if you think Silverman has a winnable case.,2023-07-11 00:35:38,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 821,"People aren't charged with downloading from Pirate Bay. Rather, downloading something from Pirate Bay may be one (admittedly important) piece of evidence of an infringement. Additional evidence will be required, to satisfy the full requirements of ""infringement"". For just one example, a prosecutor could not simply say ""the defendant downloaded from Pirate Bay"". They would need to identify specific works being infringed. And ""those works are on Pirate Bay"" would also not be enough; they'd have to concretely show that the defendant actually downloaded those works.",2023-07-11 22:25:27,KamikazeArchon,3,NEGATIVE 822,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 20:48:59,,1,POSITIVE 823,"Nobody care's about doing it ""now"", but, may I remind you, that after Napster fell publishers/law firms started attacking individual infringers to collect more money and protect their IP, they still do it today, and ISP's are forced to report them.",2023-07-10 17:55:21,h4z3,2,NEGATIVE 824,"Yep, IANAL, and I don't think the lawyers would be nearly as confident as you were on anything relating to training AI. I certainly wouldn't be confident that a judge would agree with my initial flippant comment in this chain, in case that's what you're basing this on.",2023-07-10 16:59:46,prestodigitarium,2,NEGATIVE 825,Yeah but that isn't theft or copyright infringement. That's just using Wikipedia.,2023-07-10 14:16:13,Lallo-the-Long,10,NEGATIVE 826,"5 mins messing around in MidJourney and my subjective opinion is that creating a prompt is not immediately comparable to creating “Art.” I can maybe imagine some particularly well crafted prompts that end up arguably being protectable (or generating protectable outputs), but the power of AI as a tool (a tool you didn’t create) is drastically so much more than in other recognized art forms.",2023-07-10 18:49:01,sunnbeta,1,NEGATIVE 827,"I see where the confusion was, and I know my part in it, sorry about that. Ill try to clear myself up here. Thinking of art as an end state where you have a thing, and only thinking of it in that way IS capitalistic. It IS thinking of art as the end state, which IS incorrect. ""Finished"" art does have a ""product"" but art is not the ""product"" and I'm sorry english doesnt have a full range of expression to fully define it in one word, so I hope this paragraph will suffice. If you think art is exclusively the end state then you are wrong. AI does not create art, it creates a product. Now, that I've explained it, I'm not going to get into the weeds about definitions. If you have something to say about the artistic process, but any further conversation about the use of the term ""product"" is pedantic and debate bro.",2023-07-10 17:44:55,T3chn0Punk,2,NEGATIVE 828,But it’s not better.,2023-07-10 19:13:08,MrPookPook,5,POSITIVE 829,"“No one imagines the problems we are dealing with now.” I think because cars started out being tried with steam, and people did not know if they would become a huge thing in the beginning, you could say they didn’t know. However, when cars began to use fossil fuels and become popular… There are usually scientists who know. No one cared enough. In the early 1800s scientists knew about climate change. Also in the 1800s it was known that the industrial revolution had an extremely destructive effect on the soil because of bad agricultural practices. We still use bad agricultural practices. At a certain point, it absolutely works like that, but profit and/or ‘progress’ come first for the people who have shaped the world. They could have stopped and thought about the impact and listened to scientists or even done their own studies (which you’d be surprised the number of companies that do and just don’t care about the impact).",2023-07-10 12:00:21,MajesticToebean,2,NEGATIVE 830,"Wait so where does AI fit into this? What are we conquering? It literally just seems like something we don't fully understand the consequences of disguised as progress. If literally all that happens is people lose jobs and a bunch of weirdos become dependent on talking to AI instead of other humans, that's still really bad. I don't understand the positive for people who aren't entrenched fully in hedonism.",2023-07-10 16:01:46,non_avian,1,NEGATIVE 831,"It's not an individual problem. It doesn't matter if you, on your car, pollutes less than a yacht owner. It's the enormous number of cars that have an impact on pollution. If it was just one or even one hundred or one thousand car owners it wouldn't be a problema.",2023-07-10 14:36:00,,1,NEGATIVE 832,"Comics, illustrated novels, commissions, subscriptions for monthly content.",2023-07-11 00:02:24,AnOnlineHandle,1,POSITIVE 833,The thread is specifically about ChatGPT as it exists IRL. Hypothetical future fears are unwarranted with regards to the topic at hand.,2023-07-10 22:07:20,Genoscythe_,1,NEGATIVE 834,"its not about being high minded about it. its about still being able to make a living off of it, especially for young artists whose sources of income are disappearing, as people can just do what used to be freelancing work via ai now. high quality human art always retains value, just less people will be able to earn at least minimum wage with it, and less people will be able to afford it. its now affordable in terms of high quantity ml generated art and artists make no money off of it, despite their work being used as training data. the money goes to the company using their work as training data to train their for profit ml algorithm.",2023-07-10 23:07:48,KronosCifer,1,NEGATIVE 835,">I read the complaint, and they're not claiming that ChatGPT has created derivative works. I see on page 12 they’re actually claiming the language model itself became a derivative work when it trained on their originals without permission. On page 11 they specifically indicate they never gave permission to create derivative works. Yes they’re probably over-stepping by claiming that once it trained, everything it then does should be considered a derivative work, but the core of the complaint is plainly the training without permission/compensation and not merely “generating somewhat accurate summaries.”",2023-07-10 23:15:09,sunnbeta,1,NEGATIVE 836,"That’s your opinion as well Stop giving legal advice",2023-07-12 04:06:21,breakbeats573,1,NEGATIVE 837,"The Dead Sea is not a sea, even though it has ""sea"" in the name.",2023-07-11 03:05:12,folk_science,10,NEGATIVE 838,"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea also has several terms in the name, it doesn't actually mean what people think about it colloquially.",2023-08-08 13:26:07,zxyzyxz,1,NEGATIVE 839,"You are correct, my reference was insufficient. [This is a great article](https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innocent_infringement.pdf) on the topic of accidental infringement and I would recommend it if you’re interested. To avoid a red herring, I’ll go back to my original comment, since that’s why I’m here. Unlike us, AI cannot create new ideas to learn from. Instead, it references a library of work which we, people, produce to learn from. It then creates work using this library. This runs the same risk that college and assemblage artists face: art has to be transformative in order draw off of a single source directly - otherwise it can be considered copyright infringement. In the case of copyright, transformative means that it must involve the creation of new information, new aesthetics, and new insights and understanding. This is qualitative and vague, as is all of copyright and parody law. It’s made to be that way and there are lots of holes. When someone plugs something into an AI algorithm, they might totally come up with something original and that’s awesome. But most of the time it’s not, it’s directly derivative of one or a few specific artists, which has a lot to do with how these algorithms are being used. To then try to sell or copyright work produced by AI is a big risk, and could result in a lawsuit. That’s time, money, resources, and likely a few people’s livelihood, and there will always be holes regardless of what goes to court. That’s why it’s standard practice in any creative industry to give credit and license work directly inspired by other artists: to avoid ever getting sued and dealing with the mess that is the law. It’s also why the easiest solution for AI is allowing artists to sell the copyright and likeness of their assets to an algorithm, similar to how stock sites operate. This will also make it easier for AI artists to take credit for their work without the stress of possibly being sued for it",2023-07-11 07:55:32,frogtown98,1,NEGATIVE 840,"Hey, I'm a totally open minded 87 year old supreme court Justice. Explain to me how learning from copyrighted work and then producing something based on that knowledge is copyright infringement",2023-07-12 09:03:14,IShowerinSunglasses,1,POSITIVE 841,"Insulting me for a thing I didn't even comment on. Hmm, let me run your comment through my whine translator. >I better change the topic because my ego is threatened by more information. Oh, that makes more sense now.",2023-07-12 08:34:05,ReadyClayerOne,1,NEGATIVE 842,So that's what would adult l apply with Silverman?,2023-07-12 22:18:57,tgrantt,1,POSITIVE 843,Ok,2023-07-10 20:56:48,amplifizzle,1,POSITIVE 844,"Details might matter. There is transformation here; the type of transformation and how you profit from it weigh in on the scale. There isn't in Napster's case, just outright copying.",2023-07-10 18:21:39,,0,NEGATIVE 845,"Confidence doesn't matter. Established copyright law does, regardless of the novel enterprise that exists with AI. If the situation was Disney copyright lawyers suing Meta for copyright infringement they'd pull no punches. Any lawyer specializing in copyright law would do the same.",2023-07-10 17:36:07,jonnysunshine,1,NEGATIVE 846,Which just so happens to be full of summarisations of copyrighted material that some may argue is either theft or an infringement of copyright.,2023-07-10 14:24:49,GeneralMuffins,7,NEGATIVE 847,it is though. wikipedia also benefits from copyright protection.,2023-07-10 17:30:10,BeeOk1235,0,NEGATIVE 848,"I think we disagree about what ART is I’d argue that Midjourney users are making images not art But so are most draftspeople",2023-07-10 20:19:45,canadianmatt,1,NEGATIVE 849,"You can argue all day long about something being better or not, especially if you are an individual affected, or particularly triggered by the topic. That said, the results cannot be argued. Why do we have CGI in movies now? Because a computer can do better what we previously could not do. If AI sucked (and it does kind of suck now), people won’t pay for it. People won’t use it. It won’t get popular. Things that suck, generally, are not profitable. I’ll repeat again, **the cream will still rise to the top**. This means people who are talented, will still be successful because they are talented. It’s the mediocre writers, the below average artists. In general, when you are average to below average, your leverage is in your cost. Can’t afford a good artist to draw for your book? Pay for a cheaper one. AI will replace all the average to below average because the product those people produce will not be worth the cheaper, faster, and better product technology will produce. If you cannot fathom this concept, then there really isn’t much more to say.",2023-07-10 19:21:24,Hanyabull,2,NEGATIVE 850,"Oh I'm aware of oil companies being aware of the impact GHGs would have on the environment and not caring back in like the 70s. The arguments are a bit more complicated though. For example if the west had stopped using fossil fuels, the USSR might have won the cold war. Unfortunately the world isn't all working towards common goals all the time. That being said, of course there should have been much more focus on creating more sustainable energy sources and getting off of fossil fuels earlier. But a vast majority of people care first and foremost about their own prosperity and comfort, that is no different today. People know single use plastics are bad, but they are cheap and convenient so we keep using them because the bad consequences don't impact themselves bad enough nor direct enough for them to sacrifice the convenience and 'profit'. Companies are no different, and in fact it is very possible that if companies had decided to make those sacrifices, they would have been outcompeted by those that did not and went bankrupt. That is why policy and regulations are so important. But now that these problems are global, we need global regulations. We can close coal power plants in the rich countries but if they are just opened again across the border - we don't win much. But global policy is extremely difficult to achieve.",2023-07-10 12:10:19,Cajum,4,NEGATIVE 851,"In theory AI could do pretty much all jobs and we could share the revenue evenly amongst everyone, perhaps divide it based on what you contribute to the social and mental wellfare of the community you live in",2023-07-10 19:28:30,Cajum,1,NEGATIVE 852,"the methodology of data collection will still be the same. how it collects data now to provide shit summaries will be the same way it collects data to write shit novels in the future. the issue isn't the output, it's the input.",2023-07-10 22:15:53,GenericGaming,1,NEGATIVE 853,"Which goes back to my point about how the current economies mismanage the prosperity brought about by innovation and automation. That's not the fault of AI generated content - literally all it is doing is making art more available to more people. This is very similar to arguing that former factory workers should break the new machines, because then people would have to be paid to do that dangerous, tedious work. Why should people aspire to slog through that? Artists should be free to make art without have to worry about whether their creation has enough market value for them to trade it for food and shelter. Automation and innovation create prosperity. Capitalism and autocracy are what concentrate the benefit to the handful of people in the owning class. Smashing the machines does nothing to fix the real problem.",2023-07-10 23:40:05,xmagusx,1,NEGATIVE 854,"My understanding of what constitutes a ""derivative work"" and their \[lawyers'?\] understanding are clearly different. We'll see which way the court rules, but I'd be surprised if a jury (and they're seeking a jury trial, probably for its unsophisticated understanding of what ""derivative work"" means) sides with them. If ""training"" creates a derivative work in and of itself, then IMO everyone who reads her book becomes a walking derivative work.",2023-07-11 07:03:17,anotherlevl,1,NEGATIVE 855,Nah.,2023-07-12 04:13:09,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 856,"It's a fucking robot dude. It doesn't have knowledge. It has memory. And you don't get the point anyway, so I'm not wasting my breath.",2023-07-12 09:04:03,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 857,Sounds like you had a bad day today champ. I don't care!,2023-07-12 09:26:55,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 858,"Are you dumb or just acting dumb? Napster was just an example of how they do in fact attack the individuals after setting a precedent, and that's why it's important to not just let it go with an ""it is what it is"". When talking about AI/LLM's we are not talking about the output since they know is harder to fight a transformative, we are talking about the training, they waiting for a verdict to start selling datasets and copy strike everything else, mark my words.",2023-07-10 18:31:50,h4z3,0,NEGATIVE 859,"No one is going to successfully argue that summarizing summaries is an infringement of copyright, because that's insane. Are book reports copyright infringement? No. Is goodreads.com copyright infringement because it contains summaries? No. Is Wikipedia infringing on copyright because it contains summaries? No. Summarizing a work is not and has never been infringing on copyright.",2023-07-10 14:32:25,Lallo-the-Long,4,NEGATIVE 860,"By that logic, a 6th grade book report is copyright infringement.",2023-07-10 16:47:30,Buka-Zero,1,NEGATIVE 861,No. Reading and learning and being able to summarize Wikipedia articles is not copyright infringement.,2023-07-10 17:32:30,Lallo-the-Long,1,POSITIVE 862,Agree MJ users aren’t making ART,2023-07-10 21:05:00,sunnbeta,1,NEGATIVE 863,"I understand what you’re saying but I don’t understand why you would want that. Why would you want a world where most “art” is created by a computer with minimal human input? Where is the pleasure in that? From a heartless business POV it makes sense. Why worry about writers and their unions when you can have a computer program write infinite boring qHow I Met Your Mother scripts? Why care about an actor when you can have a computer program recreate their likeness and their voice and turn them into your dancing monkey? Can you tell me why you think that is preferable to what we have now?",2023-07-10 19:33:56,MrPookPook,8,NEGATIVE 864,"I think we agree in general and are on the same page and both want to save humanity. Honestly the details and blame are more for preventing future disaster. I agree it is very complicated and unfortunate that people in power and powerful institutions are self serving, however, I do believe that the economic systems that dominate(d) the world at any time were and are mostly to blame for individuals’ self serving behavior. Most people are just trying to get through the working day. Humans seem a lot less selfish when we are more community-focused and have less alienating work.",2023-07-10 12:18:16,MajesticToebean,2,NEGATIVE 865,Any non-delusional replies? That sounds like a really good justification for a genocide of people deemed valueless,2023-07-10 23:39:13,non_avian,1,NEGATIVE 866,"The size of the output isn't the issue, the quality is. Like you said, it's shit. It's useful if you want to replace the rote labor of someone writing bullshit corporate emails, or padded out clickbait news articles, in other words, it you need someone with the job skills of ""basic literacy"". If it would write novel length texts it could replace garbage self-help books or whatever, but it is not a threat to actual human self-expression exactly because it is not doing that.",2023-07-10 22:33:20,Genoscythe_,0,NEGATIVE 867,"its not the fault of ai, but the reality of it. i would love if we could just accept and embrace it and thered be no downsides. we cant though, the way our society is built wont let us, as you said. i would love if people could just make art unbothered by anything, but you gotta put food on the table. this is just another technology that has the potential to pull the rug out from working class people who are just trying to get by. if you really love what youre doing, the only thing you can do is fight it. and people love doing art. its nice that so many others can experience art thru ai, but with the insane productivity increase it promises, you will have no choice but to use it if you want to work in the industry. whether you like it or not. skip the entire creative process and get to prompting. i see no joy in this.",2023-07-11 01:18:23,KronosCifer,1,NEGATIVE 868,"> If ""training"" creates a derivative work in and of itself, then IMO everyone who reads her book becomes a walking derivative work. Only if the courts say language models are people and vice versa",2023-07-11 13:39:16,sunnbeta,1,NEGATIVE 869,Horrible advice,2023-07-12 23:35:34,breakbeats573,1,NEGATIVE 870,"I get your point, I'm just pointing out that it's stupid and means nothing. There is no discernable difference about how the two things learn and reproduce.",2023-07-12 09:05:57,IShowerinSunglasses,1,NEGATIVE 871,"Let me run that through too. Oh, it's just the sound of a baby crying. Seriously, still not sure where you got the idea that I'm defending or hoping the plaintiffs win since I didn't say anything about it.",2023-07-12 20:26:24,ReadyClayerOne,1,NEGATIVE 872,"going for the personal attack, are you? Just saying that details matter in law. Be cautious drawing parallels using analogies. Napster was never about fair use, so the legal precedent is completely different. You cannot use one to explain the other.",2023-07-10 19:30:01,,0,NEGATIVE 873,Heres to hoping that remains the case!,2023-07-10 14:35:54,GeneralMuffins,2,POSITIVE 874,"Wikipedia articles have copyright on behalf of the users that wrote them. Copying/modifying/redistributing them is only allowed on the basis of the [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License). And *that* license basically requires attribution back to the Wikipedia article. You can make the argument that the chatbot summarizing a Wikipedia article is a modification of that article, and that the chatbot should include attribution when offering that summary. All this goes back to the complaint that ChatGPT is a black box, where it spews out info without attribution. And there is no verification on how ""correct"" any of that info is.",2023-07-10 18:46:34,Knofbath,1,NEGATIVE 875,it is when you scrape the data and put it into a program programmed to emulate that data as accurately as possible.,2023-07-10 22:00:40,BeeOk1235,1,POSITIVE 876,[gelöscht],2023-07-10 21:04:38,,-2,POSITIVE 877,"We aren't genociding people who don't add value now so why would that change? We don't always take great care of the elderly and the handicapped etc but they are a relatively small group compared to the whole work force. The transition might be rough in some places like the united states but the good news is, lawyers will be one of the first to get replaced so hopefully they will fight for the profits to not only go to billionaires. Either way AI is coming, there is no stopping it. And it will either bring us to a post scarcity world or kill us all. Guess we will find out which it is soon enough.",2023-07-11 09:30:21,Cajum,0,NEGATIVE 878,"no it's not. regardless of the quality of the output, the input is still the same stolen source. the argument against having works being fed into an AI is not the same as disliking shit content being put out by AI. while the two positions can and often do overlap, they are separate arguments. you are arguing against the latter as a rebuttal to my stance on the former.",2023-07-10 22:43:33,GenericGaming,1,NEGATIVE 879,"One is a machine that uses memory. One is made of flesh and cells and cells and uses a complex network of neurons and neural pathways to absorb and create abstract thoughts. These ""AI"" are just word machines. They make words based on existing words. They have no intelligence. They don't learn. There is a very discernible difference, and the law should absofuckinglutely treat them differently. It already does. An AI cannot ""author"" a copyrighted work, legally speaking.",2023-07-12 09:08:19,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 880,It's pretty obvious there's something else going on in your life that's making you act this way. Hopefully it resolves itself ASAP and your life improves for the better.,2023-07-12 20:32:54,crazysoup23,1,NEGATIVE 881,">going for the personal attack, are you? Just stating facts, I was clear in my analogy that I was talking about corporations going after individuals after setting a precedent vs the big guys, so, saying that they won't do the same for small/local LLM's and/or repositories of free/open/community datasets isn't just disingenuous, it is dangerous. It's not my fault if you like to pull at straws.",2023-07-10 19:58:38,h4z3,0,NEGATIVE 882,">All this goes back to the complaint that ChatGPT is a black box, where it spews out info without attribution. And there is no verification on how ""correct"" any of that info is. Kinda like a human who reads things and learns from them, ya know?",2023-07-10 18:55:12,Lallo-the-Long,1,NEGATIVE 883,"To be less flippant, the attribution you're asking for exists, it's just a part of the research documentation and published articles.",2023-07-10 18:58:25,Lallo-the-Long,1,NEGATIVE 884,"What you’re describing is a future full of hollow Content, not art. It’s easier and cheaper than ever to be a practicing artist. You don’t need to build your own tools. You don’t need to make your own paints. There are countless people making tutorials that are freely available with an internet connection. You don’t need a Medici financially supporting you anymore in order to make art. Why don’t you want to learn an artistic skill? You’re looking for a cheat code to art and that’s really weird.",2023-07-10 22:07:47,MrPookPook,5,NEGATIVE 885,"You haven't made any argument for the former, your posts have been all about how art is an expression of self, which has nothing to do with whether or not AI generated texts are stolen. Even if you were right, them not being artistic, or not being an expression of the self, doesn't mean that they are stolen.",2023-07-10 22:58:21,Genoscythe_,0,NEGATIVE 886,"You're profoundly incorrect about this. Every AI work is totally original in the same way human art is. We learn in the same way. You're right about copyright law, but that simply doesn't matter if ai can reproduce everything in just the right way to avoid breaking IP laws.",2023-07-12 09:10:54,IShowerinSunglasses,1,NEGATIVE 887,Still not sure why you thought I would be disappointed that Silverman (and co) wouldn't win or whatever. You came across as super defensive that I posted links and quotes to the actual lawsuit and I don't particularly feel like that defensive behavior is something that deserves respect at this point of the internet.,2023-07-13 05:27:18,ReadyClayerOne,1,NEGATIVE 888,"I'm totally in agreement with your sentiment. I feel actual despair when I don't immediately push the thoughts of how bad the art and writing in popular culture is going to get. It's also amazing how naive fucking techbros are about the negative effects of this shit. Also, calling content hollow definitely seems redundant - most things that get that label are an inch deep at best. In my mind that word definitely has a negative connotation.",2023-07-10 22:33:01,DiamondKiwi,2,NEGATIVE 889,Okay boomer.,2023-07-12 09:11:33,DizzyFrogHS,1,NEGATIVE 890,"Oh, you're submitting. Good.",2023-07-12 09:12:26,IShowerinSunglasses,1,POSITIVE 891,I'm starting to think the HS means highschool and I just talked to a teenager who knows absolutely nothing about this.,2023-07-12 09:32:01,IShowerinSunglasses,1,NEGATIVE 892,[gelöscht],2023-07-12 09:33:28,,1,POSITIVE 893,Want to bang?,2023-07-12 09:34:35,IShowerinSunglasses,1,POSITIVE 894,Thank you for submitting,2023-07-12 10:56:00,IShowerinSunglasses,1,POSITIVE