Comment by a_random_canuck | Hacker News Reader

Comment by a_random_canuck | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

a_random_canuck

> ChatGPT can't sell it as its own content, ChatGPT has no brain, no thoughts and no agency. There are a few questions that matter here.

ChatGPT is a machine built and operated by humans. If ChatGPT infringes copyright, then it is those humans who own and operate it who are infringing.

The fact that they built a complex obfuscated system that stores many copyrighted works in a novel way (model weights) and reproduces them incompletely or unpredictably when asked, doesn’t change the fact that they have built a system whose purpose is to infringe copyright.

It’s a little bit like saying I started the car running and let it drive off on its own accord in front of a huge crowd of people, I’m not responsible for the deaths because it was the car that ran them over and the car doesn’t have agency. The car wasn’t designed to kill and never intended to kill. But it’s still me who operates the car and should have foreseen the obvious consequences.

I don’t buy into any of these arguments that just because ChatGPT is very complex or mysterious that somehow the humans who built or are running it aren’t responsible for its actions.

> It’s a little bit like saying I started the car running and let it drive off on its own accord in front of a huge crowd of people <snip>

Interesting. Why do you feel as though this is the proper analogy, rather than being the car manufacturer who builds the car which could be used in this way?

What about a car manufacturer who knowingly does not put in a widget to ensure the car is never allowed to exceed the speed limit? Or does not install a breathalyser which drivers need to blow into in order to start the car?

It's also worth noting that simply reproducing copyrighted material is not necessarily an infringement of that copyright, and in most jurisdictions, it depends on the purpose the reproduction is intended to serve.

I don't think any analogy is needed: if I can go to chatGPT, and have it start printing out pages of a book, that is in itself, ipso facto, indeed tautologically IP theft.

Unfortunately, copyright law is complex, and simply reproducing a book may not always be IP theft. There are many potential ways it could be perfectly above board.

For example, the copyright on the book may have expired. Or it could be fair use (however that's defined in the user's jurisdiction). Or the user of ChatGPT may have a physical copy of the book and lives in a jurisdiction where this allows them to obtain a digital copy.

Sure there's plenty of ways to copy a book and not break the law...but as long as there is any way to break the law by selling copies of the book, then the law is broken, because that's exactly what opneai is doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com