As a paying ChatGPT customer, I wanted to start a discussion in the community, triggered by Gary Marcus’ substack article
https : // garymarcus . substack . com / p / the-desperate-race-to-save-generative/comments?,publication_id=888615&post_id=140480488&isFreemail=true&comments=true
I made the following posting there :
https : // substack . com / profile / 63442026-myles-dear
https : // garymarcus . substack . com / p / the-desperate-race-to-save-generative / comment / 46891336
·edited Jan 8Liked by Gary Marcus
To be fair, as a software engineer, I mostly use ChatGPT to pull in public-domain knowledge that I lack to accomplish specific tasks. None of the links it comes up with for any of my prompts point to any paywall of any sort. It helps save me gobs of time and makes me more effective and efficient because it’s able to take large amounts of information via web plugins, munge it together, and spit it out in the form I need. I feel I’m getting my money’s worth.
With that said, I do empathize with copyright holders and feel sad that the same tool has crossed those lines. If all copyrighted content was pulled from ChatGPT I wouldn’t shed a tear. Also, if I wanted ChatGPT to access copyrighted data, I wouldn’t mind paying an optional fee for the privilege (think Spotify and how one monthly fee gets distributed to the copyright owners whose content you actually use).
In fact, Github CoPilot has already been dinged for providing publicly accessible code in its responses and now it’s possible to set it to generate original content only and not regurgitate public code verbatim. Anything is possible, if there’s the political will to do so. We should continue to push back to our AI providers.