Sarah Silverman leads class-action lawsuit against ChatGPT creator

[overgeeked]

Sarah Silverman Leads Class Action Copyright Suit Against ChatGPT

Good. Here’s to hoping this puts an end to programmers stealing others’ work to fuel their programs.

Too bad all the artists having their works ripped off by “AI“ art programs don’t have this kind of thing going. Here’s to hoping they will soon.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

This will not be the win indie artists think it will, as the only ones who will benefit from AI training being copyright infringement are the major media corporations, who will then proceed to use AI themselves and prevent anyone else from doing so. Which is quite easy as users have already signed their rights away to companies like #Twitter and #Meta simply by posting there.

 

[Umbran]

Good. Here’s to hoping this puts an end to programmers stealing others’ work to fuel their programs.

Historically, we don't deal with the repercussions of new technology in a "one and done" way. This is a first step in what is apt to be decades of wrangling over how we should approach such technology.

 

[Ryujin]

Let's hope that this eventually creates precedent that favours content creators, and not just mega-corp publishers who profit from them.

 

[Umbran]

Let's hope that this eventually creates precedent that favours content creators, and not just mega-corp publishers who profit from them.

This dispute is kind of orthogonal to the creator/publisher balance of power.

Silverman wrote a book, The Bedwetter. That book was published by Harper Collins. This is not a dispute between the creator and their publisher. Open AI is a third party that allegedly used the book without any permission from either the creator or publisher.

The balance of power between creator and publisher doesn't lie in the copyright itself, but in the contracts that determine who holds the copyright. The publisher/creator balance is about whether the creators take "Work for hire" contracts, or other arrangements that leave rights in the publisher's hands.

 

[Ryujin]

This dispute is kind of orthogonal to the creator/publisher balance of power.

Silverman wrote a book, The Bedwetter. That book was published by Harper Collins. This is not a dispute between the creator and their publisher. Open AI is a third party that allegedly used the book without any permission from either the creator or publisher.

The balance of power between creator and publisher doesn't lie in the copyright itself, but in the contracts that determine who holds the copyright. The publisher/creator balance is about whether the creators take "Work for hire" contracts, or other arrangements that leave rights in the publisher's hands.

I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware that copyright tends to favour large organizations over small ones/single entities, as exercised through organizations like MPAA. I'm wondering if something like this would simply further cement that existing imbalance, or if it could somehow act to correct it.

 

[Kaodi]

I wonder whether AI-plagiarism will affect fair use doctrine. AI bots "stealing" from creators is perhaps more a more discrete phenomenon than the way people also build on what has come before. But how different in kind is it really?

 

[Morrus]

This will not be the win indie artists think it will, as the only ones who will benefit from AI training being copyright infringement are the major media corporations, who will then proceed to use AI themselves and prevent anyone else from doing so.

I have a different take on this. I think the ones with a LOT to lose are the multi-billion dollar corporations, and it's them who--by protecting themselves--might just help usher in protections which will also help everybody else. The last thing Disney etc. wants is AI scraping Mickey Mouse and Yoda.

Still, we'll see. All we can do is guess. Right now it's so early. Who knows what will happen? This is a thing which will develop over the coming decades.

 

[le Redoutable]

GPT in french gives I did fart ( j'ai pété )

 

[Bohandas]

I'm sick of these [string of obscenities redacted] artists and their attacks on fair use. They're only salty because they had all drank the "creativity is a special woo-woo human special trait that takes a soul and feelings and all that other woo-woo nonsense" kool-aid and it hurts their ego that they were proven wrong.

That and the fact that they're completly ignorant of how AI works, are applying a double standard (how come Warhol can steal entire product designs, duchamp can present a mass-manufactured toilet as an original piece, and William S Burroughs can write all his pieces by literally cutting up preexisting articles and rearranging the words, but if a computer borrows a handful of pixels or half a dozen letters suddenly the world is ending)

Plus, I think some of them are misrepresenting things things deliberately to save their sorry-[expletive deleted] jobs just like the original Luddites and every bit as contemptably! Many have even admityed as much! Can you imagine if the people before us had listened to that kind of argument? Forget the fact that you wouldn't be able to hire an uber to protect the old-timey cabbies, neither you nor they would have a car because those put all the coachmen and stablehands and other people out of business (with the exception of a handful of extremely niche uses) ALSO You wouldn't have a refridgerator! You wouldn't even have a refridgerator because they put the ice deliveryman put of a job. And everything would be very dark and badly lit because the lamplighters and the candlemakers need to have something to do. And you know what the worst part is? I'm underexaggerating things! Every important new innovation puts someone out of a job! The invention of bronze put someone out of a job! Domesticated animals put someone out of a job! When I hear somebody say that they don't like a new innovation because it will put people out of a job what I hear is that they want us all to survive by hunting wild animals with [expletive deleted] stone spears!

And more importantly the only thing that's gonna happen if they succeed is that it's gonna take that power out of the hands of the common man, and out of the artists' hands as well, and put it more firmly than ever in the hands of the big corporations that already own all the art anyway