Technology

37708 readers

347 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

A response to the Sarah Silverman suing OpenAI post from yesterday: [AI doesn't read or write like humans, and we shouldn't act like it does.] (agrobertson.substack.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A long form response to the concerns and comments and general principles many people had in the post about authors suing companies creating LLMs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Here, Silverman is the only one making a copyright claim. ChatGPT is not claiming a copyright on its output.

It'd be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence.

I disagree. Nothing about "fair use" requires that the work be copyrighted on its own, or even copyrightable. It simply can't be subject to the original copyright.

A summary is a "transformative derivation". Even if that summary cannot be copyrighted on its for some reason, it is not subject to the copyright of the original work.