For now. But when you can generate work in the style of an artist without paying that artist, I would. More importantly, media production companies will and so will use access to people's post work to put them out of work now.
We need to distribute the benefits, we're drifting towards copyright infringement being allowed by rich corporation (with resources to generate "AI") as long as they abstract it through a transformer, or whatever.
You can't copyright a "style".
The 3% number was a conservative rounding of the same calculation, but retaining fp16 rather than quantizing to 4 bits.
Here's my original back of the napkin analysis:
Why jump straight to one of the longest popular books in English? I'm sure plenty of people who would otherwise buy poetry anthologies are asking ChatGPT to write them a haiku. It's also entirely conceivable that ChatGPT can perfectly reproduce a poem in its training set - it can produce paragraph-sized quotes.
https://apnews.com/article/openai-lawsuit-authors-grisham-ge...
Further, these models are not used to reproduce copyrighted works... they would be one of the least efficient ways to do so.
I also don't think there's a particularly strong argument that training on a book or image decreases the market for the original book or image. To take an example, zero folks that want to read Game of Thrones are asking ChatGPT to generate Game of Thrones for them instead of buying the book.
I think what's really happened here is that artists' work has utility outside of the originally intended audience, that utility largely comes from statistically analyzing the writing, and the debate is about whether or not the utility of those statistics requires additional compensation for the artists. That question seems to hinge on the intricacies of copyright law, but as I've stated before, I think the fair use argument is quite strong.