Talk:Copyright issues behind ChatGPT's creation
The length of your article seems to be great for your first draft. Your introduction seems to have a good amount of substance to introduce Chat GPT and its capabilities. I think you could add more information to both the Copyright and History sections. Especially since copyright is the main focus of this article and is a vital concept to grasp in order to truly understand the ethical implications of Chat GPT and AI as a whole that you present.
You do have the three major components of a good article. I think your introduction does a pretty good job at summarizing chat GPT, but I think you could give it a little more substance. For example, I think you could expand on its abilities a little more because I think it's the range of capabilities that makes the software so striking. I also think you could expand a little bit on how the model works for those that don’t understand natural language processing (you have to assume your audience doesn’t). This could materialize in another section dedicated to explaining some of the logistics of chat gpt to lay the foundations for copyright issues. I like the way you’ve divided this article, it feels very intuitive. I’m glad you have a section about copyright considering its the central theme, and I think you could add a bit to it. I think you should give a little more in the ‘polarized views’ section as this is the central location where you address the ethical concerns. You do a good job of backing up your statements with credible sources, especially with pieces of information that warrant a source. Some of your sources could be more credible for sure: (i.e. citing forbes and the verge). Although there may not be as many academic articles relating specifically to chat gpt, I’m sure there are plenty of scholarly articles written about copyright issues relating to AI.
The issue at stake seems pretty clear to me. It seems like the biggest ethical issue at hand just deals with the tension between human and non-human authorship. You cover this issue very well, and I appreciate your inclusion of different perspectives
In terms of neutral/objective reporting, I think you can work on this. In several instances it is just how you phrase things. Refraining from using words like “huge” and “highly” (intro). Your reporting of CHAT GPT’s limitations feels subjective at times, especially in your second paragraph. I think you should rename the ‘questions need to be answered’ tab section slightly because it also feels subjective. Despite there not being any copyright protection for work generated by machines, I don’t think you can objectively deem it as ‘not acceptable’ as you do in the beginning of the “authorship belongs to non-humans” section.
Overall great start to this article. Good job.
