Ziro

Let’s remove the context of AI altogether.

Say, for instance, you were to check out and read a book from a free public library. You then go on to use some of the book’s content as the basis of your opinions. More, you also absorb some of the common language structures used in that book and unwittingly use them on your own when you speak or write.

Are you infringing on copyright by adopting the book’s views and using some of the sentence structures its author employed? At what point can we say that an author owns the language in their work? Who owns language, in general?

Assuming that a GPT model cannot regurgitate verbatim the contents of its training dataset, how is copyright applicable to it?

Edit: I also would imagine that if we were discussing an open source LLM instead of GPT-4 or GPT-3.5, sentiment here would be different. And more, I imagine that some of the ire here stems from a misunderstanding of how transformer models are trained and how they function.

Excepting the opinion of the imaginary person you’ve invented, the question still remains.

Edit: and I would like to add that I do not align myself with conservative politics. I just question the morality of killing a being that would have likely lived if it had been removed from the mother.

That’s not really a relevant argument. It isn’t about whether people care about babies or not. Rather, this is a question of ethics: is it morally wrong to kill a baby if it’s still in your body but could live outside your body? If not, why not, assuming that it is morally wrong to kill another human?