Grisham, Martin join authors suing OpenAI: “There is nothing fair about this”

https://lemm.ee/post/8717232

Grisham, Martin join authors suing OpenAI: “There is nothing fair about this” - lemm.ee

Yesterday, popular authors including John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, George R.R. Martin, Jodi Picoult, and George Saunders joined the Authors Guild in suing OpenAI, alleging that training the company’s large language models (LLMs) used to power AI tools like ChatGPT on pirated versions of their books violates copyright laws and is “systematic theft on a mass scale.” “Generative AI is a vast new field for Silicon Valley’s longstanding exploitation of content providers," Franzen said in a statement provided to Ars. "Authors should have the right to decide when their works are used to ‘train’ AI. If they choose to opt in, they should be appropriately compensated.” OpenAI has previously argued against two lawsuits filed earlier this year by authors making similar claims that authors suing “misconceive the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.” This latest complaint argued that OpenAI’s “LLMs endanger fiction writers’ ability to make a living, in that the LLMs allow anyone to generate—automatically and freely (or very cheaply)—texts that they would otherwise pay writers to create.” Authors are also concerned that the LLMs fuel AI tools that “can spit out derivative works: material that is based on, mimics, summarizes, or paraphrases” their works, allegedly turning their works into “engines of” authors’ “own destruction” by harming the book market for them. Even worse, the complaint alleged, businesses are being built around opportunities to create allegedly derivative works: Businesses are sprouting up to sell prompts that allow users to enter the world of an author’s books and create derivative stories within that world. For example, a business called Socialdraft offers long prompts that lead ChatGPT to engage in ‘conversations’ with popular fiction authors like Plaintiff Grisham, Plaintiff Martin, Margaret Atwood, Dan Brown, and others about their works, as well as prompts that promise to help customers ‘Craft Bestselling Books with AI.’ They claimed that OpenAI could have trained their LLMs exclusively on works in the public domain or paid authors “a reasonable licensing fee” but chose not to. Authors feel that without their copyrighted works, OpenAI “would have no commercial product with which to damage—if not usurp—the market for these professional authors’ works.” “There is nothing fair about this,” the authors’ complaint said. Their complaint noted that OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman claims that he shares their concerns, telling Congress that "creators deserve control over how their creations are used” and deserve to “benefit from this technology.” But, the claim adds, so far, Altman and OpenAI—which, claimants allege, “intend to earn billions of dollars” from their LLMs—have “proved unwilling to turn these words into actions.” Saunders said that the lawsuit—which is a proposed class action estimated to include tens of thousands of authors, some of multiple works, where OpenAI could owe $150,000 per infringed work—was an “effort to nudge the tech world to make good on its frequent declarations that it is on the side of creativity.” He also said that stakes went beyond protecting authors’ works. “Writers should be fairly compensated for their work,” Saunders said. "Fair compensation means that a person’s work is valued, plain and simple. This, in turn, tells the culture what to think of that work and the people who do it. And the work of the writer—the human imagination, struggling with reality, trying to discern virtue and responsibility within it—is essential to a functioning democracy.” The authors’ complaint said that as more writers have reported being replaced by AI content-writing tools, more authors feel entitled to compensation from OpenAI. The Authors Guild told the court that 90 percent of authors responding to an internal survey from March 2023 “believe that writers should be compensated for the use of their work in ‘training’ AI.” On top of this, there are other threats, their complaint said, including that “ChatGPT is being used to generate low-quality ebooks, impersonating authors, and displacing human-authored books.” Authors claimed that despite Altman’s public support for creators, OpenAI is intentionally harming creators, noting that OpenAI has admitted to training LLMs on copyrighted works and claiming that there’s evidence that OpenAI’s LLMs “ingested” their books “in their entireties.” “Until very recently, ChatGPT could be prompted to return quotations of text from copyrighted books with a good degree of accuracy,” the complaint said. “Now, however, ChatGPT generally responds to such prompts with the statement, ‘I can’t provide verbatim excerpts from copyrighted texts.’” To authors, this suggests that OpenAI is exercising more caution in the face of authors’ growing complaints, perhaps since authors have alleged that the LLMs were trained on pirated copies of their books. They’ve accused OpenAI of being “opaque” and refusing to discuss the sources of their LLMs’ data sets. Authors have demanded a jury trial and asked a US district court in New York for a permanent injunction to prevent OpenAI’s alleged copyright infringement, claiming that if OpenAI’s LLMs continue to illegally leverage their works, they will lose licensing opportunities and risk being usurped in the book market. Ars could not immediately reach OpenAI for comment. [Update: OpenAI’s spokesperson told Ars that “creative professionals around the world use ChatGPT as a part of their creative process. We respect the rights of writers and authors, and believe they should benefit from AI technology. We’re having productive conversations with many creators around the world, including the Authors Guild, and have been working cooperatively to understand and discuss their concerns about AI. We’re optimistic we will continue to find mutually beneficial ways to work together to help people utilize new technology in a rich content ecosystem.”] Rachel Geman, a partner with Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel for the authors, said that OpenAI’s "decision to copy authors’ works, done without offering any choices or providing any compensation, threatens the role and livelihood of writers as a whole.” She told Ars that "this is in no way a case against technology. This is a case against a corporation to vindicate the important rights of writers.”

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Martin, Jodi Picoult, and George Saunders joined the Authors Guild in suing OpenAI, alleging that training the company’s large language models (LLMs) used to power AI tools like ChatGPT on pirated versions of their books violates copyright laws and is “systematic theft on a mass scale.”

They claimed that OpenAI could have trained their LLMs exclusively on works in the public domain or paid authors “a reasonable licensing fee” but chose not to.

But, the claim adds, so far, Altman and OpenAI—which, claimants allege, “intend to earn billions of dollars” from their LLMs—have “proved unwilling to turn these words into actions.”

Saunders said that the lawsuit—which is a proposed class action estimated to include tens of thousands of authors, some of multiple works, where OpenAI could owe $150,000 per infringed work—was an “effort to nudge the tech world to make good on its frequent declarations that it is on the side of creativity.”

On top of this, there are other threats, their complaint said, including that “ChatGPT is being used to generate low-quality ebooks, impersonating authors, and displacing human-authored books.”

We’re having productive conversations with many creators around the world, including the Authors Guild, and have been working cooperatively to understand and discuss their concerns about AI.

The original article contains 1,001 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

GitHub - RikudouSage/LemmyAutoTldrBot

Contribute to RikudouSage/LemmyAutoTldrBot development by creating an account on GitHub.

GitHub
Maybe AI can finish Winds of Winter for him
Maybe AI can finish Winds of Winter for him
Can’t be any worse than season 8.
Is this bot going to get sued by boomer luddites, too?
Has George R. R. Martin even released a book since LLMs began collecting data? A Dance with Dragons came out 12 years ago.
He’s written like a dozen novellas since then. I think he just got really sick of writing long stories and has enough money to just do whatever he feels like…which appears to not be finishing GoT.
I think he’s also not sure how to untangle the knots he’s tied in a satisfying way, and the disappointing reception of the tv series ending probably further killed his motivation. Like you said, he’s got plenty of money, so it’s easy to procrastinate untangling his story threads.
Honestly, AI could be the tool that helps him break through and finish his series. It's ridiculous that he's suing OpenAI instead of using their tools to help him power through and finally finish what he started.
Absolutely agreed. GRRM usually takes the Gordian knot solution to untangling those, but I had the exact same thought that he painted himself into a corner with the complexity of the storyline. He should have broken it down into smaller chunks and do 15 books instead of 5.
Maybe he can get ChatGPT to finish it.
so long as i don’t have to read anymore 3 pages about the detail on a character’s garment ;)
Yes, plenty. Just not the one people want.
I’m just one guy and my opinions don’t matter, but uh… boo fucking hoo.
Well, if he would actually release his books, maybe Georgie-boy wouldn’t have to feel threatened by a robot taking his job.
If he wrote another book, that would probably just get fed right into the training data like the rest of them, so he would have the same problem he has now.
They are fighting an uphill battle to get anything. It’s a pretty strong argument that training a model is fair use.

Funny, but I don't think there's a very strong argument that training AI is fair use, especially when you consider how it intersects with the standard four factors that generally determine whether a use of copyrighted work is fair or not.

Specifically stuff like:

courts tend to give greater protection to creative works; consequently, fair use applies more broadly to nonfiction, rather than fiction. Courts are usually more protective of art, music, poetry, feature films, and other creative works than they might be of nonfiction works.

Courts have ruled that even uses of small amounts may be excessive if they take the “heart of the work.” ... Photographs and artwork often generate controversies, because a user usually needs the full image, or the full “amount,” and this may not be a fair use.

(Keep in mind that many popular AI models have been trained on vast amounts of entire artworks, large sections of text, etc.)

Effect on the market is perhaps more complicated than the other three factors. Fundamentally, this factor means that if you could have realistically purchased or licensed the copyrighted work, that fact weighs against a finding of fair use. To evaluate this factor, you may need to make a simple investigation of the market to determine if the work is reasonably available for purchase or licensing. A work may be reasonably available if you are using a large portion of a book that is for sale at a typical market price. “Effect” is also closely linked to “purpose.” If your purpose is research or scholarship, market effect may be difficult to prove. If your purpose is commercial, then adverse market effect may be easier to prove.

To me, this factor is by far the strongest argument against AI being considered fair use.

The fact is that today's generative AI is being widely used for commercial purposes and stands to have a dramatic effect on the market for the same types of work that they are using to train their data models--work that they could realistically have been licensing, and probably should be.

Ask any artist, writer, musician, or other creator whether they think it's "fair" to use their work to generate commercial products without any form of credit, consent or compensation, and the vast majority will tell you it isn't. I'm curious what "strong argument" that AI training is fair use is, because I'm just not seeing it.

Fair Use | Columbia University Libraries

AI training is taking facts which aren’t subject to copyright, not actual content that is subject to it. The original work or a derivative isn’t being distributed or copied. While it may be possible for a user to recreate a copyrighted material with sufficient prompting, the fact it’s possible isn’t any more relevant than for a copy machine. It’s the same as an aspiring author reading all of Martin’s work for inspiration. They can write a story based on a vaguely medieval England full of rape and murder, without paying Martin a dime. What they can’t do is call it Westeros, or have the main character be named Eddard Stork.

There may be an argument that a copy needs to be purchased to extract the facts, but that’s not any special license, a used copy of the book would be sufficient.

AI isn’t doing anything that hasn’t already been done by humans for hundreds of years, it’s just doing it faster.

It’s the same as an aspiring author reading all of Martin’s work for inspiration. They can write a story based on a vaguely medieval England full of rape and murder, without paying Martin a dime. What they can’t do is call it Westeros, or have the main character be named Eddard Stork.

This isn’t about a person reading things and taking inspiration and writing a similar story though. This is about a company consuming copyrighted works to and selling software that is based on those copyrighted works. It’s different.

A company is just a person in the legal world. They are consuming copyrighted works just like an aspiring author. They are then using that knowledge to generate something new.

Legally, I think you're basically right on.

I think what will eventually need to happen is society deciding whether this is actually the desired legal state of affairs or not. A pretty strong argument can be made that "just doing it faster" makes an enormous difference on the ultimate impact, such that it may be worth adjusting copyright law to explicitly prohibit AI creation of derivative works, training on copyrighted materials without consent, or some other kinds of restrictions.

I do somewhat fear that, in our continuous pursuit for endless amounts of convenient "content" and entertainment to distract ourselves from the real world, we'll essentially outsource human creativity to AI, and I don't love the idea of a future where no one is creating anything because it's impossible to make a living from it due to literally infinite competition from AI.

I think that fear is overblown, ai models are only as good as their training material. It still requires humans to create new content to keep models growing. Training ai on ai generated content doesn’t work out well.

Models aren’t good enough yet to actually fully create quality content. It’s also not clear that the ability for them to do so is imminent, maybe one day it will. Right now these tools are really onlyngood for assisting a creator in making drafts, or identifying weak parts of the story.

Models aren’t good enough yet to actually fully create quality content.

Which is why I really hate the fact that they and the media had dubbed this “intelligence”. Bigger programs and more data doesn’t just automatically make something intelligent.

This is such a weird take imo. We’ve been calling agent behavior in video games AI since forever but suddenly everyone has an issue when it’s applied to LLMs.

If I took 100 of the world’s best-selling novels, wrote each individual word onto a flashcard, shuffled the entire deck, then created an entirely new novel out of that, (with completely original characters, plot threads, themes, and messaged) could it be said that I produced stolen work?

What if I specifically attempted to emulate the style of the number one author on that list? What if instead of 100 novels, I used 1,000 or 10,000? What if instead of words on flashcards, I wrote down sentences? What if it were letters instead?

At some point, regardless of by what means the changes were derived, a transformed work must pass a threshold whereby content alone it is sufficiently different enough that it can no longer be considered derivative.

Y’all are missing the point, what you said is about AI output and is not the main issue in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is about the input to AI - authors want to choose if their content may be used to train AI or not (and if yes, be compensated for it).

There is an analogy elsewhere in this thread that is pretty apt - this scenario is akin to an university using pirated textbooks to educate their students. Whether or not the student ended up pursing a field that uses the knowledge does not matter - the issue is the university should not have done so in the first place.

I imagine that the easiest way to acquire specific training data for a LLM is to download EBooks from amazon. If a university professor pirates a textbook and then uses extracts from various pages in their lecture slides, the cost of the crime would be the cost of a single textbook. In the case of a novel, GRRM should be entitled to the cost of a set of Ice & Fire if they could prove that the original training material was illegaly pirated instead of legally purchased.

I’m not sure your assessment of the “cost of damages” is really accurate but again, that’s not the point.

The point of the lawsuit is about control. If the authors succeed in setting precedent that they should control the use of their work in AI training, then they can easily negotiate the terms with AI tech companies for much more money.

The point is not one-time compensation, it’s about the control in the future.

Not even collage art automatically counts as fair use.
yeah… the quaility of comment isn’t very high on this topic. Sure, George boy, summer prince, should go write right now and give the world the story he promised, but this goes far, far beyond that. Take your heads out of your butt, people.
Would be hilarious to see this get thrown out because the plaintiff has no standing to sue because he hasn't written anything in over a decade
Why would that matter literally at all?
it don't, it was a shitpost dig at him doing nothing for the past decade and letting the fandom die, no need to overthink it :P
Fair enough, I guess

I don’t see how this could work.

ChatGPTs output is not a derivative of a specific novel.

@DogMuffins

As I understand it, it's not about the output it's about the input.

Same basic principle as why universities don't simply give students a pirated copy of the entire textbook.

Hmm… if that were true then why would they be expecting $150k per book?

My understanding us that in copyright infringement the liability is the amount of income you have deprived the author of. If you’ve only copied 1 book and not produced derivative works then the loss is the value of the book.

@DogMuffins

This is why it's such an interesting case. We think of the LLM as one entity, but another way of looking at it is that it's a lot of iterations.

The pirated book text files that are doing the rounds with the AI seem to be multiple iterations as well.

One $150 textbook x 1,000 students = $150k.

Even with public libraries, they pay volume licenses for ebooks based on how many "copies" can be lended simultaneously per year. It's not considered as the library owning one copy when digital files are being lent.

Sorry mate this is just daft.

Did you read the article? Most of it is about derivative works.

LLMs fuel AI tools that “can spit out derivative works: material that is based on, mimics, summarizes, or paraphrases” their works, allegedly turning their works into “engines of” authors’ “own destruction” by harming the book market for them.

They’re trying to claim that they have been financially harmed by the unauthorised use of their work.

Even if LLMs are separate iterations you could train multiple LLMs with one copy of the book - the library is not loaning multiple copies simultaneously.

@DogMuffins

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression they don't yet have a derivative work that's close enough to clain plagiarism. Without that, they don't have a leg to stand on.

This is the only part I think could potentially hold water:

Authors should have the right to decide when their works are used to ‘train’ AI. If they choose to opt in, they should be appropriately compensated.”

As for libraries:

the library is not loaning multiple copies simultaneously.

I'm not sure why you're saying that.

With ebook platforms the business model completely depends on the concept of multiple copies. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact about how they bill libraries. Random stats.

Even with physical copies libraries sometimes buy several (and in my country publishers get special compensation based on how many copies are in public libraries per year)

Hold On, eBooks Cost HOW Much? The Inconvenient Truth About Library eCollections

Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Smart Bitches, Trashy Books
Universities giving away pirated textbooks is output.
@hypelightfly It's input into the students' brains.
And the very concept of “pirated” textbooks is itself monstrous. Textbooks should be free, in universities, schools, and everywhere. I can see some arguments for copyright maybe possibly being somewhat beneficial for artists (with reasonable limits… for five or maybe even ten years, say, and most definitely no longer than the author’s lifespan, and of course not applicable to companies), but copyrighting learning tools can only be harmful to society.

Same principle why Google can index pretty much all books in existence. They were sued over this and won. Same thing will happen here.

As long as these models are not providing the copyrighted material to their users they should be safe.

@Akisamb yes I think you're right.

That one was really interesting too. It has put a few more limits on its full text since those days, but I don't know how much that was a result of the suit.

The authors from my country tried to have a group lawsuit against Google because within my country, if your books are in public libraries, then you get yearly compensation based on how many copies are in circulation.

But, Google and America are both a lot more rich and powerful than a handful of authors from New Zealand, so I don't know what they though they could achieve.

It can be if you ask it too. I gave it a prompt and it put the whole story so far into a multi page summary.

If you use the pro API it will make a book that covers everything.

Research’s have found evidence it was fed entire copyrighted books, not just web content. The web content alone could cover most major plot points, though.

The next generation might just have abridged books generated by an ai. Eventually it’s the norm to have your assistant app give you an interactive version of the story. No one pays for books.

It may not calculate well mathematically, if not factually at all, but ChatGPT can sure as hell wax poetically with some direction and input.

But the best I can say is that, for now, ChatGPT should be only be relegated to Fanfics, tbh, lmao…

The first country to kill off LLMs with draconian interpretations of copyright law will simply be handing the industry to other countries on a golden platter. For this reason, I don't see the U.S. ruling in any sort of way that would damage the AI industry too much. There is simply too much money involved.
If enough countries join in then there will be a barrier to actually making money off of it. Even if you become the leader in AI if your method is just banned in other countries the money won't be there.

It’s not about making money, not only at least. The other reason why the US, China and other countries are obsessed with AI, LLM, NN, ML is because it may prove decisive for their militaries.

What is thought by most militaries today is that we are at a turning point of sorts and the next generation of weapons will be powered by AI in some capacity, and the more we go on, the more AI will be involved (target acquisition, reaction, drone and missile guidance, APS, AA, etc)

Given how we train models (content and math), AIs is not practical to ban/legislate away. While the public applications of AI are for content generation and NLP, as @Rinox alluded to, the military applications are where we are going to see the most focus from the government. As an example, the Lantirn targeting pod uses SVMs to profile aircraft from afar, and it took enormous engineering to get it accurate. Comparable object detection functionality can be obtained with NNs and off-the-shelf GPUs. Countries like China already have "differing philosophies" when it comes to intellectual property rights, so we can remove the largest manufacturing market from the potential list of those who would blanket ban AI. Ditto on any possibility of their military forgoing AI either.

The real problem here is copyright law, which has extended protections far and above the length of time that is reasonable. Had we terms of say 35 years, we could simply train on older material.

The fuck is an English language AI supposed to be trained on, if not popular examples of the English language? Churning the entire global corpus down to a mess of algebra is extremely transformative. Nevermind the end goal is a generalized program to produce anything, in limitless quantities, based on high-level descriptions and incomplete examples.

We can’t even offer to use texts from thirty-odd years ago, in the public domain… because copyright maximalism like this shit right here have ruined the public domain. Surprisingly - A Game Of Thrones would still be in-copyright. It’s from 1996. But there’s another generation of living authors, and a whole mess of dead people, who haven’t written much since well before then, and made quite a lot of money off what they did. That culture belongs to its audience now. That’s what the money was for.

And that’s fine, but they’re owed royalties for it. If you create something, you have the right to charge for it, until we leave capitalism behind and move towards the federation, then people need to pay for things like food. GRR is fun to poke fun at, but think of all the college thesis or papers that were shamelessly stolen from individuals and can be used to create new ones. Those people deserve to eat for what they made.

If copyright needs to change then let’s update copyright, but it’s not fair to blame the people who created them is stuff for wanting what they’re owed. As you point out, it would be worthless without what they contributed, and so by that, they have worth and value they are owed.

Stolen! Theft! Robbery!!!

Fuck that. They used publicly-available documents, and they used them to measure letter frequencies. The model just guesses what letter comes next. That’s it. The more English text we shovel in, the more generic the model gets.

You don’t pay royalties on every work you’ve ever read, before writing these comments.

When this technology is working properly, that’s the level of impact each work has.

Holy cow the comments here are so alarming. OpenAI isn’t some non profit trying to better humanity. They are a for profit company making money with a product that is ILLEGALY derived from the work of others. Why are y’all so apathetic? Pretty disheartening.
Lemmy’s opinion on the topic is often very biased towards the views of tech bros rather than writers/creators, at least that’s what I’ve observed. Tech bros have a boner for LLM AIs. They don’t have anything to lose from the development of these AIs, so they don’t seem to understand the concerns of people who do.
This has been a surprise for me. I see this community as pro privacy, anti big tech, and anti capitalism. AI seems like a hot button issue at the confluence of all three, and yet comments suggest many have rose tinted glasses for tech companies with LLMs.
To pile onto that, I was recently disturbed to find I was the dissenting voice in a comment thread by saying that we should not use AI to produce generated CSAM. The top comment defended the idea.

It is impossible to generate CSAM.

That’s the entire goddamn point of calling it CSAM. To stop people mislabeling drawings as CP, when they don’t understand that Bart Simpson doesn’t have the same moral standing as a real human child.