• Asafum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like when confronted about a “stolen comedy bit” a lot of these people complaining would also argue that “no work is entirely unique, everyone borrows from what already existed before.” But now they’re all coming out of the woodwork for a payday or something… It’s kinda frustrating especially if they kill any private use too…

    • TheyHaveNoName@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m a teacher and the last half of this school year was a comedy of my colleagues trying to “ban” chat GPT. I’m not so much worried about students using chat GPT to do work. A simple two minute conversation with a student who creates an excellent (but suspected) piece of writing will tell you whether they wrote it themselves or not. What worries me is exactly those moments where you’re asking for a summary or a synopsis of something. You really have no idea what data is being used to create that summary.

    • BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The issue isn’t that people are using others works for ‘derivative’ content.

      The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she’s written for.

      With chat GPT and other AI, its been ‘trained’ on her work (and, presumably as many other’s works as possible) once, and now there’s no ‘views’, or even sources given, to those properties.

      And like a lot of digital work, its reach and speed is unprecedented. Like, previously, yeah, of course you could still ‘derive’ from people’s works indirectly, like from a friend that watched it and recounted the ‘good bits’, or through general ‘cultural osmosis’. But that was still limited by the speed of humans, and of culture. With AI, it can happen a functionally infinite number of times, nearly instantly.

      Is all that to say Silverman is 100% right here? Probably not. But I do think that, the legality of ChatGPT, and other AI that can ‘copy’ artist’s work, is worth questioning. But its a sticky enough issue that I’m genuinely not sure what the best route is. Certainly, I think current AI writing and image generation ought to be ineligible for commercial use until the issue has at least been addressed.

      • azuth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she’s written for.

        Damn did they already start implanting DRM bio-chips in people?

        And like a lot of digital work, its reach and speed is unprecedented. Like, previously, yeah, of course you could still ‘derive’ from people’s works indirectly, like from a friend that watched it and recounted the ‘good bits’, or through general ‘cultural osmosis’.

        Please explain why you cannot download a movie/episode/ebook illegally and then directly derive from it.

        • BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, you can do that, but that’s a crime.

          Which is exactly what Sarah Silverman is claiming ChatGPT is doing.

          And, beyond a individual crime of a person reading a pirated book, again, we’re talking about ChatGPT and other AI magnifying reach and speed, beyond what an individual person ever could do even if they did nothing but read pirated material all day, not unlike websites like The Pirate Bay. Y’know, how those website constantly get taken down and have to move around the globe to areas where they’re beyond the reach of the law, due to the crimes they’re doing.

          I’m not like, anti-piracy or anything. But also, I don’t think companies should be using pirated software, and my big concern about LLMs aren’t really for private use, but for corporate use.

          • azuth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, you can do that, but that’s a crime.

            Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes. It also has no effect on your output. A summary or review of that content will not be infringing, it will still be fair use.

            A more substantial work inspired by that content could be infringing or not depending on how close it is to the original content but not on the legality of your viewing of that content.

            Nor is it relevant. If you have any success with your copy you are going to cause way more damage to the original creator than pirating one copy.

            And, beyond a individual crime of a person reading a pirated book, again, we’re talking about ChatGPT and other AI magnifying reach and speed, beyond what an individual person ever could do even if they did nothing but read pirated material all day, not unlike websites like The Pirate Bay. Y’know, how those website constantly get taken down and have to move around the globe to areas where they’re beyond the reach of the law, due to the crimes they’re doing.

            I can assure you that The Pirate Bay is quite stable. I would like to point out that none of AI vendors has been actually convicted of copyright infringement yet. That their use is infringing and a crime is your opinion.

            It also going to be irrelevant because there are companies that do own massive amounts of copyrighted materials and will be able to train their own AIs, both to sell as a service and to cut down on labor costs of creating new materials. There are also companies that got people to agree to licensing their content for AI training such as Adobe.

            So copyright law will not be able to help creators. So there will be a push for more laws and regulators. Depending on what they manage to push through you can forget non major corp backed AI, reduced fair use rights (as in unapproved reviews being de-facto illegal) and perhaps a new push against software that could be used for piracy such as non-regulated video or music players, nevermind encoders etc.

            • BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes. It also has no effect on your output. A summary or review of that content will not be infringing, it will still be fair use.

              That their use is infringing and a crime is your opinion.

              “My opinion”? have you read the headline? Its not my opinion that matters, its that of the prosecution in this lawsuit. And this lawsuit indeed alleges that copyright infringement has occurred; it’ll be up to the courts to see if the claim holds water.

              I’m definitely not sure that GPT4 or other AI models are copyright infringing or otherwise illegal. But, I think that there’s enough that seems questionable that a lawsuit is valid to do some fact-finding, and honestly, I feel like the law is a few years behind on AI anyway.

              But it seem plausible that the AI could be found to be ‘illegally distributing works’, or otherwise have broken IP laws at some point during their training or operation. A lot depends on what kind of agreements were signed over the contents of the training packages, something I frankly know nothing about, and would like to see come to light.

              • azuth@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                “My opinion”? have you read the headline? Its not my opinion that matters, its that of the prosecution in this lawsuit. And this lawsuit indeed alleges that copyright infringement has occurred; it’ll be up to the courts to see if the claim holds water.

                No, the opinion that matters is the opinion of the judge. Before we have a decision, there is no copyright infringement.

                I’m definitely not sure that GPT4 or other AI models are copyright infringing or otherwise illegal. But, I think that there’s enough that seems questionable that a lawsuit is valid to do some fact-finding You sure speak as if you do.

                and honestly, I feel like the law is a few years behind on AI anyway.

                But it seem plausible that the AI could be found to be ‘illegally distributing works’, or otherwise have broken IP laws at some point during their training or operation. A lot depends on what kind of agreements were signed over the contents of the training packages, something I frankly know nothing about, and would like to see come to light.

                I 've said in my previous post that copyright will not solve the problems, what you describe as it being behind AI. Considering how the laws regarding copyright ‘caught up with the times’ in the beginning of the internet… I am not optimistic the changes will be beneficial to society.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes.

              What law makes it illegal to consume an unauthorized copy of a work?

              That’s not a flippant question. I am being absolutely serious. Copyright law prohibits the creation and distribution of unauthorized copies; it does not prohibit the reception, possession, or consumption of those copies. You can only declare content consumption to be “illegal” if there is actually a law against it.

              • azuth@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                What law makes it illegal to consume an unauthorized copy of a work?

                That’s not a flippant question. I am being absolutely serious. Copyright law prohibits the creation and distribution of unauthorized copies; it does not prohibit the reception, possession, or consumption of those copies. You can only declare content consumption to be “illegal” if there is actually a law against it.

                Which legal system?

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  She’s an American actor, suing an American company, so I think we should discuss the laws of Botswana, Mozambique, and Narnia. /s

                  • azuth@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The copying part. Yes, you can conceive a theoritical example where you can consume the content without reproducing it but it’s not what happened in this case.

                    Or any AI case. There are AI trained outside of the US but they all download the data to train on. They delete it after. What makes it not infringing in AI training is fair use exception for research.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please explain why you cannot download a movie/episode/ebook illegally and then directly derive from it.

          The law does not prohibit the receiving of an unauthorized copy. The law prohibits the distribution of the unauthorized copy. It is possible to send/transmit/upload a movie/episode/ebook illegally, but the act of receiving/downloading that unauthorized copy is not prohibited and not illegal.

          You can’t illegally download a movie/episode/ebook for the same reason that you can’t illegally park your car in your own garage: there is no law making it illegal.

          Even if ChatGPT possesses an unauthorized copy of the work, it would only violate copyright law if it created and distributed a new copy of that work. A summary of the work would be considered a “transformative derivation”, and would fall well within the boundaries of fair-use.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she’s written for.

        I can also talk to a guy in a bar rambling about her work. That guy’s name? ChatGPT.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally,

        That is not actually true.

        I would violate copyright by making an unauthorized copy and providing it to you, but you do not violate copyright for simply viewing that unauthorized copy. Sarah can come after me for creating the cop[y|ies], but she can’t come after the people to whom I send them, even if they admit to having willingly viewed a copy they knew to be unauthorized.

        Copyright applies to distribution, not consumption.