Sarah Silverman leads class-action lawsuit against ChatGPT creator

[FrogReaver]

At worst the only actionable reproduction is the training dataset itself, anything in the actual program is transformed at least as much as a William S. Burroughs novel.

And in any case it's likely a simple workaround to program the computer to just read from the original documents directly instead of compiling them into a single document and feeding that into the computer

That’s not how computers work. The only way you can see an image is if your computer locally has in its Processor Registers the 1’s and 0’s required to produce the image.

Same thing for a program trying to ‘read’ an image.

 

[Reynard]

So in some sense the probability distribution generated from training the AI on the dataset is itself the collage. That’s where all the different pictures tagged with cat are analyzed and their relationships stored. In some sense one might call that a collage of cat images.

That is not what that term means. We can't just redefine terms in order to support our arguments.

 

[Scribe]

Right, and who the hell wants to go back to paying out the ass and waiting forever to get a product made by pre-industrial craftsmen?

People with the sense to know that craftmanship and quality, and a living wage for those in ones community, are worth more than sending that money to China for a cheap hunk of plastic that is going to end up in a landfill or in the middle of the pacific.

 

[KEV777]

I think it’s also important to note that Fair Use is likely not a defense for AI art on a commercial scale.

That said the creation of AI’s themselves based on copyrighted work does seem to have much transformative and educational value when taken outside a commercial context.

It may be that the line in the sand is commercial use requires copyright holder consent and that most other uses are fair use.

AI is just a tool. Musicians for example learn how to compose and write music from other published works. That in no way invalidates their work. We often say that they are influenced by them and we even enjoy that aspect of their music.

In addition, I could for example create a composition based on entirely public domain works with satisfactory results. In the end, AI is simply a tool. An artist can use AI to create a work of art. Artists who use AI will simply become expert prompt engineers.

On a related note. As an experiment, I gave one of my software developers a task to write a function and after 10 mins I called him over to my desk (he was still working on it). I then asked gpt to do the same and it wrote the code immediately without any bugs. He now uses chat gpt for everything and I couldn't care less. He is now more productive and writing more code that is cleaner and fully documented. As for who owns the code? I could not care less. That's for all those expensive lawyers to figure out - they will of course make a fortune off this, but in the end technology will always outpace our legal system.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is not what that term means. We can't just redefine terms in order to support our arguments.

I’m not. I’m suggesting that legally there may be enough similarities between an actual collage and this new thing that rulings around this new thing may end up being based on the rulings for a collage.

 

[KEV777]

Or if you just want something that doesn't look like the literal million other copies, out there, in varying sizes.

Everyone who has ever bought something on Etsy? The people willing to pay me for leather goods, or chainmail, or photos? People who want to read or watch a story that's not a literal cut & paste of 40 other stories?

A niche market is always going to be there.

Most people don't even realize that most published novels, stories, music, movies, etc are all very formulaic in nature - and that's without AI.

AI works of art can look very different and unique if you want it to. That's called prompt engineering.

A human artist crafts a product that is largely subjective and that's why it's an easy problem for AI to solve

 

[Bohandas]

Everyone who has ever bought something on Etsy? The people willing to pay me for leather goods, or chainmail, or photos? People who want to read or watch a story that's not a literal cut & paste of 40 other stories?

Would you want to rely on Etsy? For everything?

 

[Bohandas]

Most people don't even realize that most published novels, stories, music, movies, etc are all very formulaic in nature - and that's without AI.

Even the people in the entertainment industry are formulaic and interchangable. They have been forever. When I was growing up back in the 1990's and the turn of the century there used to be a joke that the boy bands were all mass produced robots. And now having seen what GPT and Runway can do, I think that joke may have been a little bit unfair to robots.

 

[Ryujin]

Would you want to rely on Etsy? For everything?

For clothing? Maybe.

This is taken from fiction but reflects a reality of the last couple of hundred years.


“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

 

[Bohandas]

Exactly. If one of our expenses stops being an expense, entertainment in this case, we get richer.