Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by octacat on Thursday December 28, 2023 @07:44AM
(#38792897)
So, if someone decompiles a program and compiles it again, it would look different.
"It is not copying", we just did some data laundering.
Feeding someone else data into your system is usually a violation of copyright. Even if you have a very "smart" system, trying to transform and obfuscate the original data.
Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by Matticus_Rex on Thursday December 28, 2023 @10:09AM
(#38794096)
> Feeding someone else data into your system is usually a violation of copyright
In some circumstances, yes, but often it's not, especially if you're not continuing to store and use it (which OpenAI isn't).
Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by _rm on Thursday December 28, 2023 @10:10AM
(#38794101)
I'm regularly feeding other people's data into my "system" (brain) in order to produce my outputs.
So I'm a living breathing copyright violator. As a person I should be banned.
Fortunately, copyright is a bullshit fictitious right with no basis in natural law. So I don't lose much sleep over it.
Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by octacat on Thursday December 28, 2023 @10:55AM
(#38794674)
Computers are deterministic. Giving the same inputs training would produce the same model. The comparison with brain is incorrect. You could add noise on input data during the training - it would more of less reproduce the real learning. Still, it could produce less useable models as a result.
The court could ask to show the training dataset.
Can it do so more than a human can?
I think that's the key here. If an AI is no more precise than a human telling you about the news article they read today then ChatGPT learning process probably can't be morally called copying.