OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

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

    I feel the exact opposite. There’s no reason for me to create anything if someone else can come along and steal it. Eliminating copyright will bring your dystopian landscape where nobody shares any sort of art or creative work because someone else will steal it.

    What motivation is there for creatives if you’re just telling them their work has no implicit value and anyone else can come along and reappropriate it for whatever they’d like?

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

      I feel the exact opposite. There’s no reason for me to create anything if someone else can come along and steal it. Eliminating copyright will bring your dystopian landscape where nobody shares any sort of art or creative work because someone else will steal it.

      This is great because I think you are totally correct in your sentiment that we believe oppositely. I see art created only for the purpose of profit as drivel; true art is an expression of the self. If the only reason you make art is for profit, you aren’t an artist, you are an employee.

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

        That’s a great theory and all, but it’s not even money. I make no money from my photos, but I also refrain from posting any of them because I’d rather they not be used for AI training. Same with any music I create and I’m getting there with my code.

        The nobility of art has always been in question, and it’s consistently been proven that artists who aren’t compensated for their work also tend to create less.

        This is also not explicitly about profit. If I write a song and then it’s used at a hate rally, I currently have no recourse. They’re not making money from that application (directly), but they are using my creation to promote something I don’t agree with.

        I’m curious to know if you’re an artist yourself, as it’s very contrary to the opinions from other creatives I know.

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

      I assume you’re against the communal and collective culture that modders for games enjoy?

      I assume you also believe no technological innovations are produced in America anymore since China would simply steal it.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nowhere did I say derivative works are not ok. If a game maker explicitly forbids using modded versions of their game, I think that should be up to them. Games that have vibrant modding communities are almost always at least partially supported by the developer anyways.

        My points are individual copyright anyways, not corporate. With increasing individual protections I also propose decreasing corporate copyright protection.

        I believe that China makes 90% of the same product for 80% of the price after ripping off their American counterparts. But that’s also entirely off topic and really has nothing to do with this. Art/Creative Works are entirely different than physical goods.

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

          How is what AI produces not derivative? Like humans, AI takes in a bunch of inputs (think about all the art you’ve seen, read, and watched, and how it affects the art you create), and outputs something that’s derivative from the input.

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because AI has nothing new to add to the work. It’s only able to use work that it’s even before to add, and can’t learn from anything being created.

            There’s no new generation. AI does not work like a human and should not be afforded the same rights as a person. AI does not transform works the way a human would.