Comment by eru
2 months ago
At most it would be illicit copying.
Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.
2 months ago
At most it would be illicit copying.
Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.
The First Amendment is not just about free speech, but also the right to read, the only question is if AI has that right.
Does my software have the right to read the contents of a DVD and sell my own MP4 of it then no. If a streamer plays a YouTube video on there channel is the content original then yes. When gpt3 was training people saw it as a positive. When people started asking chatgpt more things than searching sites it became a negative.
If AI was just reading, there would be much less controversy. It would also be pretty useless. The issue is that AI is creating its own derivative content based on the content it ingests.
Isn't any answer to a question which hasn't been previously answered a derivative work? Or when a human write a parody of a song, or when a new type of music is influenced by something which came before.
17 replies →
kind of. the constitution as a whole, and the amendments, don't give you the right to do anything. you have the right to do whatever you want whenever you want. the constitution tells the government what it can and can not stop you from doing.
I'm not sure the US 'First Amendment' is relevant here? DeepSeek is in China.
It's hardly even illicit- at least in the United States, the output of an AI isn't copyrightable.
Was that decided in courts, yet?
In any case, copyright ain't the only thing that prevents copying.
Stochastic decompression. Dass-it.