There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates

Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is “theft” misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they’re extracting general patterns and concepts - the “Bob Dylan-ness” or “Hemingway-ness” - not copying specific text or images.

This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in “vector space”. When generating new content, the AI isn’t recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it’s learned.

This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It’s more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others’ work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can’t be owned - only particular expressions of them.

Moreover, there’s precedent for this kind of use being considered “transformative” and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.

While it’s understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it “theft” is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn’t make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.

For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744

roofuskit ,

The Times’ lawyers must be chuffed reading this.

PenisDuckCuck9001 , (edited )

Honestly, if this somehow results in regulators being like “fuck it, piracy is legal now” it won’t negatively impact me in any way…

Corporations have abused copyright law for decades, they’ve ruined the internet, they’ve ruined media, they’ve ruined video games. I want them to lose more than anything else.

The shitty and likely situation is they’ll be like “fuck it corporate piracy is legal but individuals doing it is still a crime”.

Starbuncle ,

I think that training models on scraped internet data should be legal if and only if those models’ weights are required to be open-source. It’d be like slapping a copyleft license on the internet - you can do what you want with public data, but you have to give what you use it for back to the public.

xenomor , (edited )

This take is correct although I would make one addition. It is true that copyright violation doesn’t happen when copyrighted material is inputted or when models are trained. While the outputs of these models are not necessarily copyright violations, it is possible for them to violate copyright. The same standards for violation that apply to humans should apply to these models.

I entirely reject the claims that there should be one standard for humans and another for these models. Every time this debate pops up, people claim some province based on ‘intelligence’ or ‘conscience’ or ‘understanding’ or ‘awareness’. This is a meaningless argument because we have no clear understanding about what those things are. I’m not claiming anything about the nature of these models. I’m just pointing out that people love to apply an undefined standard to them.

We should apply the same copyright standards to people, models, corporations, and old-school algorithms.

MentalEdge ,
@MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz avatar

The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.

The idea of a “teensy” exception so that we can “advance” into a dark age of creative pointlessness and regurgitated slop, where humans doing the fun part has been made “unnecessary” by the unstoppable progress of “thinking” machines, would be hilarious, if it weren’t depressing as fuck.

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@fedia.io avatar

The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression

...within a capitalistic framework.

Humans are creative creatures and will express themselves regardless of economic incentives. We don't have to transmute ideas into capital just because they have "value".

MentalEdge , (edited )
@MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz avatar

You’re not wrong.

The kind of art humanity creates is skewed a lot by the need for it to be marketable, and then sold in order to be worth doing.

But copyright is better than nothing, and this exemption would straight up be even worse than nothing.

wizardbeard ,

Sorry buddy, but that capitalistic framework is where we all have to exist for the forseeable future.

Giving corporations more power is not going to help us end that.

uriel238 ,
@uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Can’t say you’re wrong, however the forseeable future is less than two centuries, and our failure to navigate our way out of capitalism towards something more mutualistic figures largely into our imminent doom.

kibiz0r ,

That’s the reason we got copyright, but I don’t think that’s the only reason we could want copyright.

Two good reasons to want copyright:

  1. Accurate attribution
  2. Faithful reproduction

Accurate attribution:

Open source thrives on the notion that: if there’s a new problem to be solved, and it requires a new way of thinking to solve it, someone will start a project whose goal is not just to build new tools to solve the problem but also to attract other people who want to think about the problem together.

If anyone can take the codebase and pretend to be the original author, that will splinter the conversation and degrade the ability of everyone to find each other and collaborate.

In the past, this was pretty much impossible because you could check a search engine or social media to find the truth. But with enshittification and bots at every turn, that looks less and less guaranteed.

Faithful reproduction:

If I write a book and make some controversial claims, yet it still provokes a lot of interest, people might be inclined to publish slightly different versions to advance their own opinions.

Maybe a version where I seem to be making an abhorrent argument, in an effort to mitigate my influence. Maybe a version where I make an argument that the rogue publisher finds more palatable, to use my popularity to boost their own arguments.

This actually happened during the early days of publishing, by the way! It’s part of the reason we got copyright in the first place.

And again, it seems like this would be impossible to get away with now, buuut… I’m not so sure anymore.

—

Personally:

I favor piracy in the sense that I think everyone has a right to witness culture even if they can’t afford the price of admission.

And I favor remixing because the cultural conversation should be an active read-write two-way street, no just passive consumption.

But I also favor some form of licensing, because I think we have a duty to respect the integrity of the work and the voice of the creator.

I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!” I think anyone who compares OpenAI to pirates (favorably) is unwittingly helping the next set of feudal tech lords build a wall around the entirety of human creativity, and they won’t realize their mistake until the real toll booths open up.

EatATaco ,

I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!”

I’ve never done this. But I have taken lessons from people for instruments, listened to bands I like, and then created and played songs that certainly are influences by all of that. I’ve also taken a lot of art classes, and studied other people’s painting styles and then created things from what I’ve learned, and said “look at what I made!” Which is far more akin to what AI is doing that what you are implying here.

Rekorse ,

So what if its closer? Its still not an accurate description, because thats not what AI does.

captain_aggravated ,
@captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works avatar

Humans are indeed creative by nature, we like making things. What we don’t naturally do is publish, broadcast and preserve our work.

Society is iterative. What we build today, we build mostly out of what those who came before us built. We tell our versions of our forefathers’ stories, we build new and improved versions of our forefather’s machines.

A purely capitalistic society would have infinite copyright and patent durations, this idea is mine, it belongs to me, no one can ever have it, my family and only my family will profit from it forever. Nothing ever improves because improving on an old idea devalues the old idea, and the landed gentry can’t allow that.

A purely communist society immediately enters whatever anyone creates into the public domain. The guy who revolutionizes energy production making everyone’s lives better is paid the same as a janitor. So why go through all the effort? Just sweep the floors.

At least as designed, our idea of copyright is a compromise. If you have an idea, we will grant you a limited time to exclusively profit from your idea. You may allow others to also profit at your discretion; you can grant licenses, but that’s up to you. After the time is up, your idea enters the public domain, and becomes the property and heritage of humanity, just like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Others are free to reproduce and iterate upon your ideas.

Floey ,

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

freeman ,

Operating system have been used to commit copyright infringement much more effectively and massively by copying copyrighted material verbatim.

OS vendors are not liable, the people who make and distribute the copies are. The same applies for Word processors, image editors etc.

You are for a massive expansion on the scope of copyright limiting the freedoms of the general public not just AI corps or tech corps.

protist ,

Using your logic, the one making the copy in a word processor is the person typing, and the one making the copy in this LLM is OpenAI

leftzero ,

OS vendors aren’t selling¹ what users copy into the clipboard.

¹ Well, Microsoft probably is, especially with that recall bullshit, and I don’t trust Google and Apple not to do it either… but if any of them is doing it they should get fined into bankruptcy.

overload ,

Exactly, there are blatant examples of direct plagiarism spat out by these LLMs.

makyo ,

I thought the larger point was that they’re using plenty of sources that do not lie in the public domain. Like if I download a textbook to read for a class instead of buying it - I could be proscecuted for stealing. And they’ve downloaded and read millions of books without paying for them.

TommySoda ,

Here’s an experiment for you to try at home. Ask an AI model a question, copy a sentence or two of what they give back, and paste it into a search engine. The results may surprise you.

And stop comparing AI to humans but then giving AI models more freedom. If I wrote a paper I’d need to cite my sources. Where the fuck are your sources ChatGPT? Oh right, we’re not allowed to see that but you can take whatever you want from us. Sounds fair.

someguy3 ,

Can you just give us the TLDE?

freeman ,

It’s not a breach of copyright or other IP law not to cite sources on your paper.

Getting your paper rejected for lacking sources is also not infringing in your freedom. Being forced to pay damages and delete your paper from any public space would be infringement of your freedom.

explore_broaden ,

I’m pretty sure that it’s true that citing sources isn’t really relevant to copyright violation, either you are violating or not. Saying where you copied from doesn’t change anything, but if you are using some ideas with your own analysis and words it isn’t a violation either way.

TommySoda ,

I mean, you’re not necessarily wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still stealing, which was my point. Just because laws haven’t caught up to it yet doesn’t make it any less of a shitty thing to do.

Octopus1348 ,
@Octopus1348@lemy.lol avatar

When I analyze a melody I play on a piano, I see that it reflects the music I heard that day or sometimes, even music I heard and liked years ago.

Having parts similar or a part that is (coincidentally) identical to a part from another song is not stealing and does not infringe upon any law.

freeman ,

It’s not stealing, its not even ‘piracy’ which also is not stealing.

Copyright laws need to be scaled back, to not criminalize socially accepted behavior, not expand.

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

The ingredient thing is a bit amusing, because that’s basically how one of the major fast food chains got to be so big (I can’t remember which one it was ATM though; just that it wasn’t McDonald’s). They cut out the middle-man and just bought their own farm to start growing the vegetables and later on expanded to raising the animals used for the meat as well.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

Wait… they actually STOLE the cheese from the cows?

😆

Imgonnatrythis ,

I hear you about the cheese bro.

dhork ,

Bullshit. AI are not human. We shouldn’t treat them as such. AI are not creative. They just regurgitate what they are trained on. We call what it does “learning”, but that doesn’t mean we should elevate what they do to be legally equal to human learning.

It’s this same kind of twisted logic that makes people think Corporations are People.

masterspace ,

Ok, ignore this specific company and technology.

In the abstract, if you wanted to make artificial intelligence, how would you do it without using the training data that we humans use to train our own intelligence?

We learn by reading copyrighted material. Do we pay for it? Sometimes. Sometimes a teacher read it a while ago and then just regurgitated basically the same copyrighted information back to us in a slightly changed form.

doctortran , (edited )

We learn by reading copyrighted material.

We are human beings. The comparison is false on it’s face because what you all are calling AI isn’t in any conceivable way comparable to the complexity and versatility of a human mind, yet you continue to spit this lie out, over and over again, trying to play it up like it’s Data from Star Trek.

This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.

Moreover, human beings make their own choices, they aren’t actual tools.

They pointed a tool at copyrighted works and told it to copy, do some math, and regurgitate it. What the AI “does” is not relevant, what the people that programmed it told it to do with that copyrighted information is what matters.

There is no intelligence here except theirs. There is no intent here except theirs.

masterspace , (edited )

We are human beings. The comparison is false on it’s face because what you all are calling AI isn’t in any conceivable way comparable to the complexity and versatility of a human mind, yet you continue to spit this lie out, over and over again, trying to play it up like it’s Data from Star Trek.

If you fundamentally do not think that artificial intelligences can be created, the onus is on yo uto explain why it’s impossible to replicate the circuitry of our brains. Everything in science we’ve seen this far has shown that we are merely physical beings that can be recreated physically.

Otherwise, I asked you to examine a thought experiment where you are trying to build an artificial intelligence, not necessarily an LLM.

This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.

Or you are over complicating yourself to seem more important and special. Definitely no way that most people would be biased towards that, is there?

Moreover, human beings make their own choices, they aren’t actual tools.

Oh please do go ahead and show us your proof that free will exists! Thank god you finally solved that one! I heard people were really stressing about it for a while!

They pointed a tool at copyrighted works and told it to copy, do some math, and regurgitate it. What the AI “does” is not relevant, what the people that programmed it told it to do with that copyrighted information is what matters.

“I don’t know how this works but it’s math and that scares me so I’ll minimize it!”

pmc ,

If we have an AI that’s equivalent to humanity in capability of learning and creative output/transformation, it would be immoral to just use it as a tool. At least that’s how I see it.

masterspace ,

I think that’s a huge risk, but we’ve only ever seen a single, very specific type of intelligence, our own / that of animals that are pretty closely related to us.

Movies like Ex Machina and Her do a good job of pointing out that there is nothing that inherently means that an AI will be anything like us, even if they can appear that way or pass at tasks.

It’s entirely possible that we could develop an AI that was so specifically trained that it would provide the best script editing notes but be incapable of anything else for instance, including self reflection or feeling loss.

drosophila ,

This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.

I do think the complexity of artificial neural networks is overstated. A real neuron is a lot more complex than an artificial one, and real neurons are not simply feed forward like ANNs (which have to be because they are trained using back-propagation), but instead have their own spontaneous activity (which kinda implies that real neural networks don’t learn using stochastic gradient descent with back-propagation). But to say that there’s nothing at all comparable between the way humans learn and the way ANNs learn is wrong IMO.

If you read books such as V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee’s Phantoms in the Brain or Oliver Sacks’ The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat you will see lots of descriptions of patients with anosognosia brought on by brain injury. These are people who, for example, are unable to see but also incapable of recognizing this inability. If you ask them to describe what they see in front of them they will make something up on the spot (in a process called confabulation) and not realize they’ve done it. They’ll tell you what they’ve made up while believing that they’re telling the truth. (Vision is just one example, anosognosia can manifest in many different cognitive domains).

It is V.S Ramachandran’s belief that there are two processes that occur in the Brain, a confabulator (or “yes man” so to speak) and an anomaly detector (or “critic”). The yes-man’s job is to offer up explanations for sensory input that fit within the existing mental model of the world, whereas the critic’s job is to advocate for changing the world-model to fit the sensory input. In patients with anosognosia something has gone wrong in the connection between the critic and the yes man in a particular cognitive domain, and as a result the yes-man is the only one doing any work. Even in a healthy brain you can see the effects of the interplay between these two processes, such as with the placebo effect and in hallucinations brought on by sensory deprivation.

I think ANNs in general and LLMs in particular are similar to the yes-man process, but lack a critic to go along with it.

What implications does that have on copyright law? I don’t know. Real neurons in a petri dish have already been trained to play games like DOOM and control the yoke of a simulated airplane. If they were trained instead to somehow draw pictures what would the legal implications of that be?

There’s a belief that laws and political systems are derived from some sort of deep philosophical insight, but I think most of the time they’re really just whatever works in practice. So, what I’m trying to say is that we can just agree that what OpenAI does is bad and should be illegal without having to come up with a moral imperative that forces us to ban it.

Geobloke ,

And that’s all paid for. Think how much just the average high school graduate has has invested in them, ai companies want all that, but for free

masterspace ,

It’s not though.

A huge amount of what you learn, someone else paid for, then they taught that knowledge to the next person, and so on. By the time you learned it, it had effectively been pirated and copied by human brains several times before it got to you.

Literally anything you learned from a Reddit comment or a Stack Overflow post for instance.

Geobloke ,

If only there was a profession that exchanges knowledge for money. Some one who “teaches.” I wonder who would pay them

Wiz ,

The things is, they can have scads of free stuff that is not copyrighted. But they are greedy and want copyrighted stuff, too

masterspace ,

We all should. Copyright is fucking horseshit.

It costs literally nothing to make a digital copy of something. There is ZERO reason to restrict access to things.

Wiz ,

You sound like someone who has not tried to make an artistic creation for profit.

masterspace ,

You sound like someone unwilling to think about a better system.

TimeSquirrel ,
@TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org avatar

So, is the Internet caring about copyright now? Decades of Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent, Piratebay, bootleg ebooks, movies, music, etc, but we care now because it's a big corporation doing it?

Just trying to get it straight.

ManixT ,

You tell me, was it people suing companies or companies suing people?

Is a company claiming it should be able to have free access to content or a person?

riskable ,
@riskable@programming.dev avatar

Just a point of clarification: Copyright is about the right of distribution. So yes, a company can just “download the Internet”, store it, and do whatever TF they want with it as long as they don’t distribute it.

That the key: Distribution. That’s why no one gets sued for downloading. They only ever get sued for uploading. Furthermore, the damages (if found guilty) are based on the number of copies that get distributed. It’s because copyright law hasn’t been updated in decades and 99% of it predates computers (especially all the important case law).

What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works. Which is kinda what’s going on but also not really. Let’s say that someone asks ChatGPT to write a few paragraphs of something in the style of Stephen King… His “style” isn’t even cooyrightable so as long as it didn’t copy his works word-for-word is it even a derivative? No one knows. It’s never been litigated before.

My guess: No. It’s not going to count as a derivative work. Because it’s no different than a human reading all his books and performing the same, perfectly legal function.

General_Effort ,

It’s more about copying, really.

That’s why no one gets sued for downloading.

People do get sued in some countries. EG Germany. I think they stopped in the US because of the bad publicity.

What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works.

That theory is just crazy. I think it’s already been thrown out of all these suits.

catloaf ,

The Internet is not a person

masterspace ,

People on Lemmy. I personally didn’t realize everyone here was such big fans of copyright and artificial scarcity.

The reality is that people hate tech bros (deservedly) and then blindly hate on everything they like by association, which sometimes results in dumbassery like everyone now dick-riding the copyright system.

Quill7513 ,

Personally for me its about the double standard. When we perform small scale “theft” to experience things we’d be willing to pay for if we could afford it and the money funded the artists, they throw the book at us. When they build a giant machine that takes all of our work and turns it into an automated record scratcher that they will profit off of and replace our creative jobs with, that’s just good business. I don’t think it’s okay that they get to do things like implement DRM because IP theft is so terrible, but then when they do it systemically and against the specific licensing of the content that has been posted to the internet, that’s protected in the eyes of the law

masterspace ,

What about companies who scrape public sites for training data but then publish their trained models open source for anyone to use?

That feels a lot more reasonable and fair to me personally.

leftzero ,

If they still profit from it, no.

Open models made by nonprofit organisations, listing their sources, not including anything from anyone who requests it not to be included (with robots.txt, for instance), and burdened with a GPL-like viral license that prevents the models and their results from being used for profit… that’d probably be fine.

masterspace ,

And also be useless for most practical applications.

leftzero ,

We’re talking about LLMs. They’re useless for most practical applications by definition.

And when they’re not entirely useless (basically, autocomplete) they’re orders of magnitude less cost-effective than older almost equivalent alternatives, so they’re effectively useless at that, too.

They’re fancy extremely costly toys without any practical use, that thanks to the short-sighted greed of the scammers selling them will soon become even more useless due to model collapse.

Not_mikey ,

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

Cryophilia ,

Kill a person, that’s a tragedy. Kill a hundred thousand people, they make you king.

Steal $10, you go to jail. Steal $10 billion, they make you Senator.

If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.

leftzero ,

If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.

No, no it doesn’t.

It might become legal, or tolerated, or the laws might become unenforceable.

But that doesn’t make it good, on the contrary, it makes it even worse.

Cryophilia ,

No shit

Floey ,

It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

kryptonianCodeMonkey ,

There is a kernal of validity to your point, but let’s not pretend like those things are at all the same. The difference between copyright violation for personal use and copyright violation for commercialization is many orders of magnitude.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

People don’t like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.

wesker ,
@wesker@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

You drank the kool-aid.

finley ,

“but how are we supposed to keep making billions of dollars without unscrupulous intellectual property theft?! line must keep going up!!”

lettruthout ,

If they can base their business on stealing, then we can steal their AI services, right?

LibertyLizard ,

Pirating isn’t stealing but yes the collective works of humanity should belong to humanity, not some slimy cabal of venture capitalists.

sorghum ,
@sorghum@sh.itjust.works avatar

Also, ingredients to a recipe aren’t covered under copyright law.

ProstheticBrain ,

ingredients to a recipe may well be subject to copyright, which is why food writers make sure their recipes are “unique” in some small way. Enough to make them different enough to avoid accusations of direct plagiarism.

E: removed unnecessary snark

General_Effort ,

In what country is that?

Under US law, you cannot copyright recipes. You can own a specific text in which you explain the recipe. But anyone can write down the same ingredients and instructions in a different way and own that text.

General_Effort ,

Yes, that’s exactly the point. It should belong to humanity, which means that anyone can use it to improve themselves. Or to create something nice for themselves or others. That’s exactly what AI companies are doing. And because it is not stealing, it is all still there for anyone else. Unless, of course, the copyrightists get there way.

WaxedWookie ,

Unlike regular piracy, accessing “their” product hosted on their servers using their power and compute is pretty clearly theft. Morally correct theft that I wholeheartedly support, but theft nonetheless.

LibertyLizard ,

Is that how this technology works? I’m not the most knowledgeable about tech stuff honestly (at least by Lemmy standards).

masterspace ,

How do you feel about Meta and Microsoft who do the same thing but publish their models open source for anyone to use?

lettruthout ,

Well how long to you think that’s going to last? They are for-profit companies after all.

masterspace ,

I mean we’re having a discussion about what’s fair, my inherent implication is whether or not that would be a fair regulation to impose.

WalnutLum ,

Those aren’t open source, neither by the OSI’s Open Source Definition nor by the OSI’s Open Source AI Definition.

The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don’t have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).

Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

They are model-available if anything.

fancyl ,

Are the models that OpenAI creates open source? I don’t know enough about LLMs but if ChatGPT wants exemptions from the law, it result in a public good (emphasis on public).

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

The STT (speech to text) model that they created is open source (Whisper) as well as a few others:

github.com/openai/whisper

github.com/orgs/openai/repositories?type=all

WalnutLum ,

Those aren’t open source, neither by the OSI’s Open Source Definition nor by the OSI’s Open Source AI Definition.

The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don’t have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).

Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

They are model-available if anything.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

I did a quick check on the license for Whisper:

Whisper’s code and model weights are released under the MIT License. See LICENSE for further details.

So that definitely meets the Open Source Definition on your first link.

And it looks like it also meets the definition of open source as per your second link.

Additional WER/CER metrics corresponding to the other models and datasets can be found in Appendix D.1, D.2, and D.4 of the paper, as well as the BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) scores for translation in Appendix D.3.

graycube ,

Nothing about OpenAI is open-source. The name is a misdirection.

If you use my IP without my permission and profit it from it, then that is IP theft, whether or not you republish a plagiarized version.

dariusj18 ,

So I guess every reaction and review on the internet that is ad supported or behind a payroll is theft too?

RicoBerto ,

No, we have rules on fair use and derivative works. Sometimes they fall on one side, sometimes another.

InvertedParallax ,

Fair use by humans.

There is no fair use by computers, otherwise we couldn’t have piracy laws.

masterspace ,

OpenAI does not publish their models openly. Other companies like Microsoft and Meta do.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •