“‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says.”

Then fucking pay for it honestly or fucking perish, you fucking grifters.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/08/ai-tools-chatgpt-copyrighted-material-openai

@lilithsaintcrow

I keep having to repeat until I'm hoarse: "mere profit potential does not confer legitimacy on a business model"—see also child pornography and illegal drugs: both are profitable, neither of them are legal.

If your business model cannot operate without copyright violation then it should be no more legal than any other large-scale IP piracy operation.

@cstross @lilithsaintcrow just because something uses copyright doesn't make it violative of copyright.

I think generative AI is so distasteful that it's turning people into copyright maximalists without them realizing that's what's happening. Is there evidence that llm makers are using copyrights in ways that are actual violations? (I legitimately don't know the answer to this, and of course if the answer is a clear yes, that matters a lot here.)

@Amoshias @cstross @lilithsaintcrow

The answer is a clear yes. As copyright law states, LLMs can violate copyright, and as the OP article says, they definitively and admittedly are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Large_language_models_and_copyright

@Mschatelaine @Amoshias @lilithsaintcrow LLMs being able to violate copyright does not mean that LLMs violate copyright.

For instance, a pencil can violate copyright, as can a post on Mastodon. That does not mean that pencils and Mastodon violate copyright.