A New York Times copyright lawsuit could kill OpenAI::A list of authors and entertainers are also suing the tech company for damages that could total in the billions.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.

    If the output is public domain–that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI’s permission–then I side with OpenAI.

    Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn’t grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.

    I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators’ IP rights, AI companies’ interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn’t get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      I want people to take my code if they share their changes (gpl). Taking and not giving back is just free labor.

    • gram_cracker@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If LLMs like ChatGPT are allowed to produce non-copyrighted work after being trained on copyrighted work, you can effectively use them to launder copyright, which would be equivalent to abolishing it at the limit.

      A much more elegant and equitable solution would be to just abolish copyright outright. It’s the natural direction of a country that chooses to invest in LLMs anyways.