zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
It shouldn't be legal and maybe it isn't, but all schemes like this are, when you get down to it, ultimately about suppressing potential or actual evidence of serious, possibly criminal misconduct, so I don't think they are going to let the illegality get them all upset while they are having fun.

>>ecjhdn+XI
What crimes do you think have occurred here?

>>sneak+YL
An answer in the form of a question: why don't OpenAI executives want to talk about whether Sora was trained on Youtube content?

(I should reiterate that I actually wrote "serious, possibly criminal")

>>ecjhdn+5M
Because of course it was trained on Yt data, but they gain nothing from admitting that openly.

>>Kepler+r71
They will gain a lot of lawsuit if they admit they trained on youtube dataset because not everyone gave consent.

>>ezconn+ru1
Consent isn’t legally required. An admission, however, would upset a lot of extremely online people though. Seems lose lose.

>>MOARDO+CZ1
"Consent isn't legally required"?

I don't understand this point. If Google gave the data to OpenAI (which they surely haven't, right?), even then they'd not have consent from users.

As far as I understand it, it's not a given that there is no copyright infringement here. I don't think even criminal copyright infringement is off the table here, because it's clear it's for profit, it's clear it's wilful under 17 U.S.C. 506(a).

And once you consider the difficult potential position here -- that the liabilities from Sora might be worse than the liabilities from ChatGPT -- there's all sorts of potential for bad behaviour at a corporate level, from misrepresentations regarding business commitments to misrepresentations on a legal level.

>>ecjhdn+Rh2
The parent stated:

They will gain a lot of lawsuit if they admit they trained on youtube dataset because not everyone gave consent.

But a lawsuit fails if essential elements are not met. If consent isn’t required for the lawsuit to proceed, then it doesn’t matter whether or whether not consent was granted. QED.

>>MOARDO+hE2
Right - sorry, yes. I think I was reading your point back to front!