That is not how fair use works.
That is super not how fair use works:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Considering that OpenAI is making a commercial profit from developing its ML models, they seem to have missed #1 already. #3 also because the model usually ingests the entire work, not just part of it.
Actually, this makes me wonder if the design of OpenAI’s business structure is intended to try to abuse this:
The organization consists of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC.
So, the “non-profit” part of OpenAI collects the data for “research” purposes, but then the for-profit side sells the product.
All of them are considered in tandem, not individually.
Considering that OpenAI is making a commercial profit from developing its ML models
They are losing money during development (all those GPUs are not free and running them costs a lot of energy), they are making the money after it’s trained. Just factual inaccuracy.
And being used for commercial purpose is not automatic rejection. Take YouTube, where fair use comes up constantly. Almost all the cases are for commercial purpose, but most qualify under fair use.
#3 also because the model usually ingests the entire work, not just part of it.
While they are trained on full works, the used work in the result is different. Probably minimal considering the size of the models. The fact that some courts already ruled that “AI” works can’t be copyrighted gives weight to the argument that it’s a unique work.
It’s very hard to argue that “AI” generated is different from someone looking at the original and making a copy by hand. And since the latter is allowed, by the same token is the former.
A lot of people would be surprised by the kind of half-wits these giant companies install near the top of their orgs.
This dude probably hasn’t read a single license agreement in his life, and they probably got where they are by being in the right place in the right time. Instincts haven’t done them wrong yet so why stop now?
Then every time their commercial AI outputs anything even remotely infringing, they should be on the hook for every. single. incident. by. every. user. every. time.
Rules for thee!
Thats ok. I think its perfectly ok to “steal” m$ content.
I feel like these tech bros are the same kind of dullards in highschool who would argue with the english teacher about how studying symbolism, metaphors and subtext etc. was a waste of time. They don’t view things like art or creative writing as products of actual labor because they’re not strictly technical endeavours, they don’t have the capacity to understand where that stuff comes from so they develop this world view where they see it as just something frivolous that creative people casually produce almost without effort or study.
The way these people’s brains work is, ironically, so shallow and literal.
If they can download and use our content without consent and for free, then we have every right to download and use their content without consent and for free. Corporations are just as much people as we are so I don’t see any problem with this.
We need something to poison our texts for AI. Dunno how yet though 🫤
Ironically, you having an anti commercial AI license at the bottom of all your comments makes you now more of a target for AI LLMs to steal from you due to Streisand Effect.
It will be fun when ai starts spitting anti commercial disclaimers at the end of every sentence.
🤣
