• Mahlzeit@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      They almost certainly had, as it was downloaded from the net. Some stuff gets published accidentally or illegally, but that’s hardly something they can be expected to detect or police.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Unless you’re arguing that any use of data from the Internet counts as “fair use” and therefore is excepted under copyright law, what you’re saying makes no sense.

        There may be an argument that some of the ways ChatGPT uses data could count as fair use. OTOH, when it’s spitting out its training material 1:1, that makes it pretty clear it’s copyright infringement.

        • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          In reality, what you’re saying makes no sense.

          Making something available on the internet means giving permission to download it. Exceptions may be if it happens accidentally or if the uploader does not have the necessary permissions. If users had to make sure that everything was correct, they’d basically have to get a written permission via the post before visiting any page.

          Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement under US law. Using the web is rarely fair use because there is no copyright infringement. When training data is regurgitated, that is mostly fair use. If the data is public domain/out of copyright, then it is not.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Making something available on the internet means giving permission to download it.

            Literally and explicitly untrue.

            • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Sure, you can put something up and explicitly deny permission to visit the link. But courts rarely back up that kind of silliness.

            • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Oh. I see. The attempts to extract training data from ChatGPT may be criminal under the CFAA. Not a happy thought.

              I did say “making available” to exclude “hacking”.