Some argue that bots should be entitled to ingest any content they see, because people can.

  • @Dkarma
    link
    09 months ago

    You just proved my point there is nothing from stopping Google from scanning all those they just have to limit what they show of what they scanned. There it is easy to prove because the content is verbatim.

    In the case of ai it is not verbatim. How do you prove the results are directly derived from say reading harry potter vs ingesting a forums worth of content regarding hp? I don’t think as a plaintiff u can show damages or that your works were even used… The only reason this is even an issue is because chatgpt creators admitted they scanned books etc.

    • RickRussell_CAOP
      link
      fedilink
      19 months ago

      How do you prove the results are directly derived

      Mathematically? It’s a computer algorithm. Its output is deterministic, and both reproducible and traceable.

      Give the AI two copies of its training dataset, one with the copyrighted work, one without it. Now give it the same prompt and compare the outputs.

      The difference is the contribution of the copyrighted work.

      You mention Harry Potter. In Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, Warner Brothers lawyers argued that a reference encyclopedia for the Harry Potter literary universe was a derivative work. The court disagreed, on the argument that the human authors of the reference book had to perform significant creative work in extracting, summarizing, indexing and organizing the information from JK Rowling’s original works.

      I wonder if the court would use the same reasoning to defend the work of an AI?