Apparently, stealing other people’s work to create product for money is now “fair use” as according to OpenAI because they are “innovating” (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,” wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit “misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.”

  • onlinepersona
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Wait, so if the way I make money is illegal now, it’s the system’s fault, isn’t it? That means I can keep going because I believe I’m justified, right? Right?

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

      In order to apply that license, you will need to fully and unequivocally identify yourself (aka: doxx yourself). Not sure that’s what you really want.

      • morhp@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t believe this is true, a nickname or online account works completely fine for attribution if nothing else is given.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Attribution is not the problem. The problems are:

          1. Entering a valid license agreement under a non-registered pseudonym.
          2. Enforcing the conditions of the license, particularly the NC and SA parts, without revealing one’s legal name.

          Depending on the applicable legislation (US, UK, EU, other), either one or both of those points may not be possible.