Exactly this, this is the equivalent of me taking a movie, making a function, charge for it, and then be displeased when the creators demand an explanation about it.

One of the largest communities on Lemmy is !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com, so I'm not really surprised that there's people that don't care about copyright :)

On the other hand, if a human is allowed to write a summary of a book, why should an AI not be allowed to do the same thing? Are they going to sue cliffnotes too?

This is a strawman.

You cannot act as though feeding LLMs data is remotely comparable to reading.

This is what I never understood about the whole training on AI thing.

When a human creates an artwork, they don't do it out of a vacuum. They've had a lifetime of inspiration from artwork they've discovered that inspires then to create something wholly new. AI does the same thing

Dude, tell me, why do u think they have being doing this only with books and art but no music?

Thats because music really has people protecting their assets. U can have ur opinion about it, but that's the only reason they haven't ABUSED companies and people's work in music.

It's not reading, it's the equivalent of me taking a movie, making a function, charge for it, and then be displeased when the creators demand an explanation.

Yeah I'll be very surprised if this goes anywhere, are they going to sue cliffsnotes as well?

Why does "fair use" even fall into it? I'm not familiar with their specific license, but the general definition of copyright is:

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.

Nothing was copied, or distributed (in a form that anybody can consider "The Work"), or displayed, or performed. The only possible legal argument they have is adapting as a derivative work. And anybody who is familiar with how an LLM works knows that the form that results from reading in content is completely different from the source.

LLMs/LDMs are not taking in billions of books and putting them into a database. It is a very lossy process. Out of all of the billions of images trained from the Stable Diffusion database, the resulting model is 4 GBs. There is no universe where you can store billions of images into a mere 4 GBs. Stable Diffusion cannot and will not, pixel-by-pixel, reproduce a Van Gogh. It can make something that kind of looks like a Van Gogh, but styles are not copyrightable.

The same applies to an LLM like ChatGPT. It cannot reproduce entire books, or anywhere close to that. If you ask it to recreate Page 25 of Silverman's book, it can't do it. If it doesn't even contain a minor portion of the original material, it can't even be considered a derivative work.

They don't have a case. They have a lot of publicity and noise, but they will lose to inevitability.

This is why I am pro AI art. It’s no different than a human taking inspiration from other work.

Nobody comes up with anything truly original. It’s all inspired by someone before them.

It is legal to create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. They don't have a leg to stand on.

The major scenario that I at least hope holds true out of this is that the AI "creations" aren't eligible for copyright themselves. If the powers that be allow all this AI created stuff copyright protection it's going to be a gigantic mess.

LLMs compress data, there’s no way ChatGPT could remember every detail of the book alongside all the other information it stores in its encodings. The issue isn’t whether the entire text of the book is contained within the encodings, it’s whether it was trained on the book in the first place.

If they first don't get fired for using ChatGPT and not double-checking the results.