OpenAI, the company behind the popular ChatGPT AI tool, has appealed to the British parliament, requesting permission to use copyrighted works for training its artificial intelligence model. The company argued that it is “impossible” to train AI models without utilizing copyrighted materials, as copyright law covers nearly all forms of human expression in today’s digital age.
According to OpenAI’s testimony submitted to the House of Lords communications and digital committee, limiting training data to public domain content from over a century ago would not adequately meet the needs of modern AI systems. The company stressed the importance of using a wide range of copyrighted materials, including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, software code, and government documents, to effectively train AI models.
Since the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, OpenAI has faced legal challenges from numerous companies, celebrities, and authors who claim that their copyrighted text was used without permission to train the AI system. The New York Times, for example, accused OpenAI of a “massive copyright infringement” and stated that ChatGPT now competes with the newspaper as an information source.
In response to these allegations, OpenAI argued that without the use of copyrighted works, their AI models would be significantly different. The company emphasized that it respects the rights of content creators and owners and is actively seeking partnerships with publishers to ensure they benefit from AI technology.
OpenAI recently struck deals with the Associated Press and media giant Axel Springer to gain access to their content. These partnerships demonstrate OpenAI’s commitment to working with content creators and exploring new revenue models.
The ongoing debate surrounding the use of copyrighted works for AI training raises important questions about the intersection of technology, intellectual property, and legal frameworks. As AI continues to advance, it is crucial to strike a balance between innovation and the protection of copyright holders’ rights.
The source of the article is from the blog newyorkpostgazette.com