91AggieLawyer said:ABATTBQ11 said:C@LAg said:this is recording it and using it. illegally. the content is copyrighted, even if readily available. what is so hard to understand about that.taxpreparer said:C@LAg said:by your logic, I should be able to use any music lyrics I want to, or the music from a song I hear. just because I heard them they are fair game. I mean... I heard it over the air, so it must be free, right?taxpreparer said:C@LAg said:disagree. 100%Logos Stick said:
They are not copying and publishing anything. Do you not understand how this AI learning works?
Also, the answers it gives are two years old. NYT should not have a copyright to a news article beyond a few months.
ChatGPT should simply give attribution like Wikipedia does.
neither people nor AI should have unfettered "fair use" to copyright material.
it may be widely available, and even freely available (e.g. on NYT's web site), but that does not mean it is free to use.
You either begin using the information in an article as soon as you read it , or you discount it. Just like you do each post on this thread.
That would depend on HOW you use them. You hear a song and hum it to yourself, or sing it to your spouse, you are using it. It record it and sell it (without permission,) you are using it illegally.
Edit to add, we all use the information we find to make decisions all the time.
ChatGPT is not being developed for free and the good of all..
It is monetized and will be monetized even further. They intend to sell off instances of the AI to be further developed/customized all over the place. and the data that was stolen to train the baseline AI will be used in ways no one can see, control or even necessarily predict.
it absolutely is an issue that needs to be hashed out legally now, rather than later.
No. This is closer to songs using the same chord progressions or different songs sounded similar because they use the same basic beats or styles.
That's nonsense. For one, the gist of most music copyright cases focus on lyrics, not the music itself. There are chord progressions that transcend music types that are used often, but even chord progressions don't make up a song or piece of music. There's melody, rhythm, and cadences within common chord progressions. Beats or styles have little to do with song differences. As a drummer, I can tell you, I could survive as a studio/gigging drummer knowing (well) about a dozen different grooves, and three or four of those aren't used much in the US pop music scene. I could lay down rock groove tracks and resell those tracks (with some adjustments) dozens of times to artists needing a pro drummer rather than software loops for their productions. But each of those artists would have a wildly different song.
I don't think you can make a music comparison here, but your's is way off even if you could.
Big Tech/Social Media/ now AI is tough. It's too big of a monumental societal shifting technology that it can't be left to the free market to normalize itself. But I don't want it to be government run either.
I just think we're going to look back in whatever the new North American state will be after WW3 and not regulating big Tech from the get go might be the biggest whiff that led to the complete destruction of the Pax American Romana
