Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bairbs t1_j9an2db wrote

I'm speaking about using copyrighted art, music, etc. I understand what training is. I also understand the steps companies take to prevent even the perception that they're training on copyrighted material. They either generate pseudo data or purchase entire libraries from stock photo sites. OpenAI and by extension, Microsoft are hoping they can get enough people on their side by saying, "Nothing is copyright if you think about it," so they can do whatever they like.

−5

gurenkagurenda t1_j9ang4f wrote

None of what you said addresses anything I said in my comment.

6

bairbs t1_j9aog2w wrote

Because I'm not talking about defining a model, I'm talking about scraping copyrighted material. Why would I change the subject to your strawman argument?

−5

gurenkagurenda t1_j9avgd7 wrote

So you think that search engines should be considered illegal copyright infringement? You say that you're just referring to scraping content, which is a necessary part of how a search engine works. So I'm forced to assume that the answer is yes.

0

bairbs t1_j9axo6n wrote

Lol, you're the one bringing search engines into this for some reason. It's a disingenuous argument and way off base from my point, which is why I'm not responding to it. You've also found all my comments and responded to them agressuvely like a good shill

0

gurenkagurenda t1_j9b8p1r wrote

>You've also found all my comments and responded to them agressuvely like a good shill

Are you talking about this? You replied to me.

I mean Jesus Christ. Anyway, I'm done trying to explain to the concept of unintended consequences to you.

2

yUQHdn7DNWr9 t1_j9bn2ue wrote

You don’t need permission to read, memorise, analyse, synthesise, learn from, paraphrase, praise or criticise copyrighted text. You need permission to reproduce it. It isn’t obvious to me that a statistical model would need to reproduce the data it is studying.

1