Regarding "it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models": OpenAI has a pattern of equating humanity's progress with their own progress in their corporate communication.
A similar instance that bugs me is on the documentation page for their GPTBot scraper (https://platform.openai.com/docs/gptbot) where they say "Allowing GPTBot to access your site can help AI models become more accurate". Strange wording, given that is specifically OpenAI's models you're allowing, not "AI models" in general.
The goal is both cases is to make you feel like you're standing in the way of progress by objecting.
If the Internet Archive makes a whoopsie with loaning out books they didn't have the license or permission to and gets sued into the ground by publishers, then OpenAI shouldn't have been/be allowed to use and process copyrighted material either.
OpenAI is actively receiving money from funders and (potentially, maybe, eventually will) make money by using others' copyrighted content at a much larger potential than what the Internet Archive was doing.
OpenAI should not have permission to soullessly suck up copyrighted material and use it to make money.
On the other hand, other countries who don't place ethical/moral/fiscal priority on creating and protecting copyrighted works will eat the wests' lunch when it comes to AI as there's no limitation that's preventing them from consuming the content.
Not sure what the answer is - maybe copyright is an archaic idea/belief built and maintained by a once well-intended, now corrupted economic system that needs a bit of a shakeup anyways...
So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing
> "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens."
> OpenAI went on to insist in the document, submitted before the House of Lords' communications and digital committee, that it complies with copyright laws and that the company believes "legally copyright law does not forbid training."
At this point, I think as a society we need to just say copyright as a concept and law has completely failed and scrap the whole thing.
The 0.01% of powerful copyright cartel publishers get rich while harming 99.99% of people, because we've seen further erosion of fair use rights, absurdly lengthy expansions of copyright to prop up Disney's profits and expansive interpretation of how much control copyright olders have and zero punishment for abuse of DMCA and other things.
Students should be able to learn from books, music, film. So should AI training models.
If there is any ambiguity about this, we should immediately write laws making it clear that training and education of all forms is explicitly allowed under fair use. Ideally, we also send anyone trying to prevent this to the guillotines.
dougb5|1 year ago
A similar instance that bugs me is on the documentation page for their GPTBot scraper (https://platform.openai.com/docs/gptbot) where they say "Allowing GPTBot to access your site can help AI models become more accurate". Strange wording, given that is specifically OpenAI's models you're allowing, not "AI models" in general.
The goal is both cases is to make you feel like you're standing in the way of progress by objecting.
scohesc|1 year ago
OpenAI is actively receiving money from funders and (potentially, maybe, eventually will) make money by using others' copyrighted content at a much larger potential than what the Internet Archive was doing.
OpenAI should not have permission to soullessly suck up copyrighted material and use it to make money.
On the other hand, other countries who don't place ethical/moral/fiscal priority on creating and protecting copyrighted works will eat the wests' lunch when it comes to AI as there's no limitation that's preventing them from consuming the content.
Not sure what the answer is - maybe copyright is an archaic idea/belief built and maintained by a once well-intended, now corrupted economic system that needs a bit of a shakeup anyways...
AnimalMuppet|1 year ago
verdverm|1 year ago
> "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens."
> OpenAI went on to insist in the document, submitted before the House of Lords' communications and digital committee, that it complies with copyright laws and that the company believes "legally copyright law does not forbid training."
marcuskane2|1 year ago
At this point, I think as a society we need to just say copyright as a concept and law has completely failed and scrap the whole thing.
The 0.01% of powerful copyright cartel publishers get rich while harming 99.99% of people, because we've seen further erosion of fair use rights, absurdly lengthy expansions of copyright to prop up Disney's profits and expansive interpretation of how much control copyright olders have and zero punishment for abuse of DMCA and other things.
Students should be able to learn from books, music, film. So should AI training models.
If there is any ambiguity about this, we should immediately write laws making it clear that training and education of all forms is explicitly allowed under fair use. Ideally, we also send anyone trying to prevent this to the guillotines.
hulitu|1 year ago
Then it shouldn't. Bloody profitors.
mediumsmart|1 year ago