[oraphalous]

I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out.

Eventually - for how many of these AI companies would a person have to track down their opt-out processes just to protect their work from AI? That's crazy.

OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work. How they are getting away with this is beyond me.

[munchler]

Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it.

Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.

[soared]

There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.

[23B1]

> Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work.

It should. The 'free and open internet' is finished because nobody is going to want to subject their IP to rampant laundering that makes someone else rich.

Tragedy of the commons.

[griomnib]

Napster had a moment too, but then they got steamrolled in court.

Courts are slow, so it seems like nothing is happening, but there’s tons of cases in the pipeline.

The media industry has forced many tech firms to bend the knee, OpenAI will follow suit. Nobody rips off Disney IP and lives to tell the tale.

[tiahura]

If your business model depends on the Roberts' court kneecapping AI, pivot. Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law because it involves the creation of intermediate, non-expressive data abstractions that do not reproduce or communicate the copyrighted work's original expression. This process aligns with fair use principles, as it is transformative, serves a distinct purpose (machine learning innovation), and does not usurp the market for the original work.

[llm_trw]

And yet Micky Mouse is in the public domain. Something those of us who remember the 90s thought would never happen.

[CamperBob2]

I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out.

Because the work being done, from the point of view of people who believe they are on the verge of creating AGI, is arguably more important than copyright.

Less controversially: if the courts determine that training an ML model is not fair use, then anyone who respects copyright law will end up with an uncompetitive model. As will anyone operating in a country where the laws force them to do so. So don't expect the large players to walk away without putting up a massive fight.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Of note here is the reason it's "important" is it will make a shit-ton of money.

[paulcole]

> OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work

This is the problem of thinking that everyone “has” to do something.

I assure you that I (and you) can use someone else’s work without asking for permission.

Will there be consequences? Perhaps.

Is the risk of the consequences enough to get me to ask for permission? Perhaps.

Am I a nice enough guy to feel like I should do the right thing and ask for permission? Perhaps.

Is everyone like me? No.

> How they are getting away with this is beyond me.

Is it really beyond you?

I think it’s pretty clear.

They’re powerful enough that the political will to hold them accountable is nonexistent.