I'm genuinely wondering how this is different from them using others work without consent, but IANAL so maybe I'm just confusing mortality and legality
why is that? all works, as long as it is "original" should be granted copyright. It should belong to the person who made it (in this case, the user, not openAI).
thats the contention, its not a person who's made it.
If I say to one of my human friends "write me a nursery rhyme", the copyright of the resulting rhyme would obviously belong to my friend - despite me prompting them. Clearly the prompt itself does not universally count as "making" it.
Let's say I made a "NovelSnippetAI", which contains a corpus of prewritten material. You can prompt it, and it will return a page which matches the sentiment of your prompt best. I think we can agree that the copyright of the page will still belong to the original writer - the user only did a query.
What if I did "NovelMixAI", which did exactly the same but alternated lines from the two best matches? What about "NovelTransformAI", which applied a mathematical formula to the best match and fed the output to a fixed Markov Chain? Now we're suddenly at "LLMAI", which does the same using a neural network - what makes it different from the rest?
Long-standing precedent is that any automated work does not qualify for copyright. You can only copyright human work.
This is the wrong analogy. The LLM is more like Photoshop and the prompt little more than a filter configuration. A machine cannot copyright its own output but a human guiding that machine can.
The morality of training on internet-scale text data is another discussion, but I would point out that this has been standard practice since the advent of the internet, both for training smaller models and for fueling large tech companies such as Google. Broadly speaking, there is nothing wrong with mere consumption. What gets both morally and legally more complex is production - how much are you allowed to synthesize from the training data? And that is a fair question.
In fact, the power of linking to data sources is what Google is almost entirely built upon.
And millions of documents authored by people that weren't compensated.
The difference is consolidating all of that value into a single company.
Similarly, people are avoiding the cost of pre-training GPT-4 class model by scraping its output.
So I think it's fair to question the moral consistency of their ToS.
[1] Please note that I am not passing a judgement on this, just stating a fact in order to make an argument.
All you’re doing is redefining content, ie thoughts, ideas, movies, videos, literature, sounds, writing, etc as “raw data”. But that isn’t raw data. There was a ton of effort that went into creating the “content”. For example, a single Wikipedia page may have many hundreds of people, some who have done years of college level studies and original research, to produce a few thousand words of content. Others have done research using primary sources. All of them have had to use effort and ingenuity to craft those into actual high quality statements, which in itself was only possible in many cases due to years of training and education. Finally, they had to setup a validation process to produce useful output from this collaborative process which included loads of arguments etc to generate what you are calling “raw data”.
I’m not sure what makes GPT’s output is any less raw than all the effort that went into producing a single Wikipedia page? Further, Wikipedia actually goes out of its way to cite its sources. GPT is designed to go out of its way to obscure its sources.
The only thing GPT does, IOW, that apparently makes the data it uses is not to cite its sources, something that would at the very least lead to professional disgrace for the people who created the “raw data” GPT uses without thought, and would even lead to lawsuits and prosecution in many cases.
So besides going out of its way to obscure the source of its data, what makes GPT’s output less raw than the output people have spent billions of man hours creating?
If GPT incurred a non negligible cost on the content owners by accessing their resources it may have been different but that's not the case.
The only thing that content owners may be able to complain about is that potentially ChatGPT/DallE may reduce their potential income and this would have to be proven. I have not stopped buying books or art of any kind since I use ChatGPT/DallE. And low quality automated content producers existed before OpenAI and were already diluting the attention to more carefully produced content (as can be seen with videos on youtube).
Quite often it contains the experience of a life of a person condensed to a few hundred pages.
ChatGPT gives easier access to the knowledge contained in tens of thousands of these books. As for me I have been reading less and less books as more wisdom is accessable on the internet in better forms (now GPT).
I'm not against what OpenAI is doing as it moves humanity forward, but like you said I won't stop using ChatGPT just because ByteDance scrapes it.
How many books do you store in 1GB How much does it cost a year to store it and have OpenAI gather it once. How much does it cost to run a GPT4 level model that will output 1GB.
That's my point here that's all. It is a huge cost for OpenAI to run a system that produces dynamic content. And it is not comparable to the cost of storing static content.
I didn't talk about the cost of producing the original data.
And I do not talk about training costs.
(while at the same time reducing future costs for everyone by distributing the capability more widely to prevent monopolization)
I’m just curious how you start off with:
> Morality and legality aside
Only to then follow it up immediately with an argument for why one is more moral. Just because you didn’t end it with “and that’s why I think OpenAI is more moral,” doesn’t mean it’s not obvious and less of an irony.
Maybe it shouldn't have been? We've been frog-boiling toward this point for a long time, from a starting point that was generally good for content creators (your content is made more discoverable) to a point that is not so good for content creators (your content is scraped and digested, programmatically laundered and regurgitated on huge corporations' own platforms with token or no attribution, and no revenue shared).
In a parallel universe where search engines were explicitly opt-in from the beginning, I think these conversations would look very different today. What OpenAI and its peers have done would, I dare say, be uncontroversially (and correctly) regarded as theft. Just as I'm not allowed to distribute^[1] software incorporating somebody else's code in a way that violates the terms of its license (or lack thereof), I shouldn't be able to distribute software that incorporates any intellectual property that I don't have the rights to.
^[1] Broadly speaking.
If they just wanted money, they could have cut out a lot of the ethical filters and choke out competitors. Google didn't stop NSFW. Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, etc didn't. AI is bound to be used for NSFW among other things, but they've set the standards to make it ethical.
I think eventually they did let loose to try to keep ahead of competitors. This probably pissed off the board and led to the drama recently? Just speculation. Because the new models are nowhere near as anal as the initial release.
I think you are wrong here, the safety filters (“safety” and “ethics” for AI are labels for boundaries and concerns of different ideological factions, and Altman and OpenAI are deep in the “safety” side—which has the nost money and power behind it so “safety” is also becoming the generic term for AI boundaries) are an important oart if the PR and regulatory lobbying effort, which is key to OpenAI’s long term moneymaking plan, given the absence of a durable moat for commercial AI.
> If they just wanted money, they could have cut out a lot of the ethical filters and choke out competitors. Google didn't stop NSFW. Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, etc didn't.
Neither, in practice, has OpenAI—there are whole communitids built around using OpenAI's models for very, very NSFW purposes. They've prevented casual NSFW, to oresent the image they want to thr government and interest grouoa whose support they want as they lovby to shape regulation of AI. avoiding being a target for things like the 404 Media campaign against CivitAI where the NSFW is more readily visible.
IP rights do not per se give the author an absolute right to determine how their work is used. It does give rights to prevent a reproduction, but that is not what an AI model does.
BTW I noticed that GPT-4 is good at writing legal letters of the sort that is widely available online. But a subpoena, ('dagvaarding', the Dutch version I have researched) it completely fails to create. Also there are not many subpoenas available online, and the court (in the Netherlands) only publishes the verdicts, not the other documents. Lawyers OTOH have a lot more of this available in their libraries.
So, my impression is that there is still a lot of material out there that is not in the corpus.
"Hello, we are a non-profit that wants to make AI models to benefit humanity. Can you give us access to your data to help us in our work?"
What if they just bought dirt cheap used copies meaning the creators saw nothing thanks to the first sale doctrine?
They could without question set up a very nice physical library in Mountain View and even invite the public in. They can probably in general scan those books for their own internal use. What got shut down was scanning the books and making them available to everyone in their entirety.
Why would you conclude that ? While an AI model does not ONLY reproduce, it most certainly can make verbatim reproductions. The things preventing the user from getting copyrighted material from chatgpt are probably only rules/guardrails. The most prominent example of this is perhaps the Bible which you could get from it quote by quote within token limit.
That’s not the same thing as general copyright.
When it comes to cutting edge business vs business decisions, the legality is often defined post-factum, e.g. in courts.
For an outsider to know whether something in a case like this is legal or not is near impossible, considering how opaque such businesses are.
We’re not trying to curb emissions for the purpose of kneecapping other economies. Short of China, we don’t really have any incentive to do that (bigger markets = better under US industrial policy [contradictory opinions from left wing undergrad students on Twitter don’t count as “US industrial policy”]). What’s actually happening is that we caused a problem and now it’s getting worse and in order to fix it we need to not allow everyone else to continue it.
This is a novel and advanced philosophical argument called, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
There's another example - intellectual property. The US was fine playing fast and loose with IP (Most famous example is Dickens' attempts to point out he was being pirated left and right in the States and not seeing a penny: https://www.charlesdickenspage.com/copyright1842.html)
Now America is on top of the IP pile, it sees other nations as playing fast and loose: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2013/04/08/indias...
Countries don’t have to join international trade regimes. They also don’t have to join climate/emission commitments. They do both of them because they come with benefits.
Cursory searching suggests the first real work on international copyright, by contrast, came about in 1886. Even early versions came after Dickens’ story here.
If you have a different balance to strike that you think is significantly and obviously better, I’m sure the whole world is interested in hearing it.
> We share the same planet, so we need to share the same environmental standards
All of the excuses to hold China to a different standard are horse shit. Is that stated plainly enough for you?
Will anybody meet their goals? The planet is the ultimate Commons. Personally, I think we're boned.
History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. Look at the shape of the story. The people on top support rules that completely coincidentally help keep them on top. It's a universal impluse.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair) is another example with a similar shape, but at the scale of individuals.
John Rawls had the right idea.
One wrong gets punished and the other - "we are exceptional" so we do as we please and do not fuck with us or else.
Do we know what data was used? And what the constraints were around it?
Do we know it was used without permission or are we just jumping in the “ai bad” bandwagon?
Conversely, photocopiers and text-to-speech engines and LLMs don't exercise choice over whether they reproduce copyrighted material and so can't be held responsible, so responsibility for clearing rights to redistribute/transform in that format clearly lies with the people inputting the copyrighted material. Obviously, OpenAI has tended to avoid making any attempts to secure those rights whatsoever
The ones that do secure permission where the works involved are subject to copyright.
The fact that the question/accusation has been raised a great many times and they have not stated "we know we haven't used information without licence because we had procedures to check licensing for all the data used to train our models", would certainly imply that they scraped data for training without reference to licensing, which makes it very likely that the models are based significantly on copyrighted and copyleft covered information.
> Do we know it was used without permission
No, we don't know for sure. But the balance of probabilities is massively skewed in that direction.
There are enough examples of image producing AIs regurgitating obvious parts of unlicensed inputs, as an indication of the common practise of just scraping everything without a care for permission. So asking for those with other models to state how they checked for permission for the input data is reasonable.
For years we’ve accepted that search engines, for example, can grab all the code on GitHub and use it to build a search index.
Google image search, in particular, ‘regurgitates’ all the images it has indexed when it thinks they match a search term.
It has a little disclaimer it shows next to the results saying that ‘images may be copyrighted’ - figuring out if they are copyrighted and if so by whom is left as an exercise for you the searcher. Depending on what you are using the image search for, the copyright of the images may, after all, not be relevant. Like, if you’re using a Google image search to get inspiration for home decor designs, do you care who owns the copyright of each image? Should Google?
GPT poses similar risks to that. It has the explicit disclaimer that things it produces might be subject to copyright. Depending on what you’re using the output for, the copyright may or may not be relevant.
Google actually pays license fees to News Corp to excerpt their content in Google News following a legal challenge so it's not exactly conclusively established that search engines have global rights to do what they do anyway. But search engines are mostly beneficial to contact creators rather than mostly competitive with them.
This is irrelevant to original point about the purpose of a search engine being to highlight rather than replace existing information sources, and OpenAI's purpose for indexing content and policy of not engaging with copyright holders being completely different