I actually think that's the best case because it would kill enterprise adoption of AI overnight. All the corps with in-house AI keep using and pushing it, but every small to medium business that isn't running AI locally will throw it out like yesterday's trash. OpenAI's stock price will soar and then plummet.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The big AI companies would just come out with a business subscription that explicitly gives you copyright.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 9 points 1 week ago

Damn

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Unlikely since, as you say, it would deter business. OpenAI already assigns rights of output to the end user according to their licensing and terms.

[–] marlowe221@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No attempt to argue with you, personally is intended here. But your comment raises another question that I’m not sure the law has answered yet.

What rights does OpenAI have in the output of ChatGPT in the first place? Because if the answer is “Not much” then their transfer of rights to the output to the user doesn’t necessarily mean much.

After all, OpenAI can only transfer rights that they have. If they don’t have any to begin with… 🤷‍♂️

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yep, totally fair question, and one that's being tested legally on many fronts. Rulings are generally siding with AI companies on the training side (using copyrighted works to train models is fair use) but there aren't many decisions yet about output. The next few years will be interesting.