Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThrillShow t1_jeak2on wrote

Reply to comment by AbeWasHereAgain in Google Accused of Using ChatGPT Algorithms in Creating Its Neural Network by MINE_exchange

In a shocking twist, an AI was built on data taken without permission.

8

NLwino t1_jeamkpr wrote

In a shocking twist, everyone using a browser takes the same data with the same permissions.

−3

malmode t1_jeankdl wrote

In a shocking twist, there is nothing new under the sun.

3

Space_Pirate_R t1_jeb7vmw wrote

In a shocking twist, posting data on social media constitutes implied permission for other users to process it in their browsers in order to read it .

However, in a second shocking twist, posting doesn't constitute implied permission for corporations to train AI with the contents of posts.

3

ThrillShow t1_jebdn9g wrote

I'm shocked by how many people unquestioningly accept the idea that AI should be entitled to the same rights as humans, as if a machine that scrapes huge portions of the internet for content is exactly the same as one person browsing.

3

NLwino t1_jeblcee wrote

What do you think search engines need to do to give you the results?

0

Space_Pirate_R t1_jebrw1m wrote

People making copyright work available on the internet are granting an implied permission for search engines to index their work, because that's pursuant to the normal purposes of posting on the internet. People make work available on the internet for the purpose of allowing others to find it using search engines and view it using browsers.

However, making copyright work available on the internet does not constitute an implied permission or license to do literally anything with the posted work. People don't usually post work on the internet for the purpose of helping corporations train commercial AIs, and therefore no implied permission to do so is granted by the act of making copyright work available on the internet.

2