For authors, artificial intelligence (AI) would have been trained with texts protected by laws without prior authorization. Last July, some 10,000 writers pointed out a situation identical to the one evident now. The film industry also faces complaints over the use of AI.
A group of writers has sued technology company OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, for allegedly infringing copyright by using their property illegally. For the authors, Artificial Intelligence (AI) would have been trained with texts protected by laws without prior authorization.
According to the complaint, filed publicly by authors Michael Chabon, David Henry Hwang, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman, OpenAI benefited and even made financial gains after ChatGPT used the content of their productions to generate a variety of texts.
What the Lawsuit Filed by Writers Against the Creator of ChatGPT Says
The writers’ lawsuit points to a problem that the aforementioned company has been facing for a long time: using other people’s work to benefit itself. Added to this is the fact of not paying for that usufruct.
The text presented by the workers states the following:
“OpenAI’s acts of copyright infringement were intentional, deliberate, and with disregard for plaintiffs. The company knew that the data sets used to train the generative AI contained protected materials.”
Writer Rachel Louise Snyder explained her motivations for joining the lawsuit. He did it by posting on the X platform:
“I’ve joined a lawsuit against OpenAI (owner of ChatGPT) over copyright infringement. This will, I hope, put some boundaries on AI in order to protect writers not only for my generation, but for many to come.”
Not The First Time Writers Have Spoken Out Against AI
Last July, some 10,000 writers pointed out a situation identical to the one evident now. On that occasion they said that it was an act of injustice to develop Generative Artificial Intelligence (IAG) with which profits were produced.
They pointed out that this same technology was trained with protected material such as their works. That is, a kind of circle that fed back to, possibly in the not so distant future, dispense with their services.
“Generative AI is deeply based on the language, stories, styles and ideas used by authors. Millions of copyrighted books, articles, essays, and poems serve as the foundation for AI systems, and receive no compensation for this contribution.”
The accusation went further. It has been argued that AI systems directly copy material into their software without even “reading” it. The president of the authors’ guild, Maya Shanbhag Lang, requested that her constituents receive part of the profits obtained from the material that arises from their work.
“Our work may not be used without our consent, credit, and compensation. All three things are a duty,” Shanbhag said.
The film industry also faces complaints over the use of AI. Amid the recent writers’ strike in Hollywood, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) proposed new protections against the growing influence of AI.
In the case of authors who work for Hollywood studios, prior to the activation of the strike, they have pointed out the new technology in a list of complaints. The recording industry’s opinion on AI was much stronger than Hollywood’s.
Universal Music Group’s almost immediate response when AI-generated music began to appear on streaming services was a forceful message to remove it, as well as warning with lawsuits.
By Leonardo Pérez
