Two authors sued OpenAI, accusing the company of violating copyright law. They say OpenAI used their work to train ChatGPT without their consent.
Two authors sued OpenAI, accusing the company of violating copyright law. They say OpenAI used their work to train ChatGPT without their consent.
Look at it this way, if an AI is developed by a private company, its purpose is to make money. It’s consuming material for that sole purpose. That isn’t the case with humans. Humans read for pleasure and for information’s sake itself. If an AI reads the same concept but with different wording, it generates different content. If a human reads the same concept but with different wording, it makes no difference.
Now, if these companies release their AI for free use, then that’s different.
Hmm so we should define what is acceptable based on having emotions? There could be people who read purely to steal and abuse others work and do not enjoy the content.
I’d disagree with your claim that different inputs for humans wouldn’t generate different outputs. Two people can read the same thing and get different outputs. Heck I’ve read a book a second time and come away with a different understanding.
I get what you’re saying but what is going to happen is laws will be written but people a lot dumber than us. Not that we are looking to make General AI but a lot of arguments currently being made are basically stating GAI could never be legal and the only justification I’ve seen is that it’s “not a human.”