>They argue that ChatGPT's ability to produce detailed summaries of their works indicates their books were included in datasets used to train the technology.
This just isn't true. The authors have detailed summaries of their books on Wikipedia, that claim seems unsustainable.
There are actually interesting legal questions about AI, but this case seems not that interesting. I don't even see how the authors would demonstrate that their copyrighted works were used and not some summary, sourced from elsewhere.
This just isn't true. The authors have detailed summaries of their books on Wikipedia, that claim seems unsustainable.
There are actually interesting legal questions about AI, but this case seems not that interesting. I don't even see how the authors would demonstrate that their copyrighted works were used and not some summary, sourced from elsewhere.