• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    First of all no: Training a model and selling the model is demonstrably equivalent to re-distributing the raw data.

    Secondly: What about all the copyleft work in there? That work is specifically licensed such that nobody can use the work to create a non-free derivative, which is exactly what openAI has done.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      Copyleft is the only valid argument here. Everything else falls under fair use as it is a derivative work.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        If I scrape a bunch of data, put it in a database, and then make that database queryable only using obscure, arcane prompts: Is that a derivative work permitted under fair use?

        Because if you can get chatgpt to spit out raw training data with the right prompt, it can essentially be used as a database of copyrighted stuff that is very difficult to query.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No because that would be distribution, as I’ve already stated.

          If it doesn’t spit out raw data and instead changes it somehow, it’s a derivative work.

          I can spell out the distinction for you twice more if you still don’t get it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Exactly! Then you agree that because chatgpt can be coerced into spitting out raw, unmodified data, distributing it is a violation of copyright. Glad we’re on the same page.

            You should look up the term “rhetorical question” by the way.