Entering of Logos Ressources into ChatGPT legal?
Hi,
Is it legal to feed ChatGPT parts of my Logos commentaries in a chat in order to draw and process their information for me? I'd imagine that it could be immensely helpful to have ChatGPT read five commentaries on a given chapter and have it pre-filter e.g. applications, explanations for a given verse or differences in opinion of commentators. One could even make it write a synthesized version of said commentaries. But does that constitute a legal issue in terms of copyright etc. or is there nothing to mind?
Is there an official Logos answer to this?
Thanks 
Comments
-
Yannik Schwab said:
Is there an official Logos answer to this?
Here's an answer of a slightly different kind: Instead of trying the lazy man's road, investing time and energy into applying one's mind to read and consider and process information while studying Scripture may be a far better proposition providing for more lasting results.
Wolfgang Schneider
(BibelCenter)
0 -
Wolfgang Schneider said:
Instead of trying the lazy man's road,
Yannik's question is a good one; certainly folks will want to be advised.
But it's also an interesting one. I've often wondered at commentary writer's approaches (since they're sort of re-inventing the wheel, yet again). Certainly, they must be aware of the problem. I've read lexicons are a simpler equation ... they tend to re-use, and alter as necessary. Carry the tradition.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Yannik Schwab said:
Is it legal to feed ChatGPT parts of my Logos commentaries in a chat
I'm no lawyer, but common sense says no way would it be legal without getting explicit permission from the publisher. And if you do get that permission, you would not need Logos, they would give you an electronic file that could be used for that purpose a lot more easily than Logos. But I seriously doubt that any publisher would do that unless you had some serious $$$$ cash to offer.
Now there are lots of public domain commentaries ... tons of them. Copyright long expired or never existed in the first place, those would be fair game [:)]
*Nothing in this post constitutes legal advice, it is 100% just the posters opinion
0 -
To the best of my knowledge, it is fair use to use copyrighted materials for training AI. See AI and Copyright Law: What We Know | Built In But this is certainly on the fringes of being about Logos software and resources as the Logos format is scarcely AI friendly.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
If one owned the A.I. part and owned Logos resources.... and wanted to put their Logos resources into their A.I. ... I don't see a problem.
But if one doesn't own both parts.... then the question of ethics would come up in my mind. Is it ethical?
And as has been mentioned, there is no excuse for direct study.
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
It seems to me like you might be on firmer footing if you run it locally, and just export Logos files. https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
"So Joshua burned Ai and made it a heap forever, a desolation until this day." Joshua 8:28 LSB
Dare to be a Joshua.
(H/T: Church Curmudgeon)
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
... said:
"So Joshua burned Ai and made it a heap forever, a desolation until this day." Joshua 8:28 LSB
Dare to be a Joshua.
(H/T: Church Curmudgeon)
AI is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good ... or for evil.
Those with big plans to use it for evil probably aren't too interested in Bible study. [H]
But Christians need to always view it as a tool, lest it become an idol to them.
0 -
John said:
AI is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good ... or for evil.
The problem is that AI is not a tool; AI is like a worker that operates a tool. AI is not like a table saw; it's like a person who owns a table saw. You give them a board to cut (i.e., ask a question), and get back the result they choose to give. You might ask for a 5-inch by 9-inch rectangle and get back a 12-inch square.
0 -
Gregory Lawhorn said:John said:
AI is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good ... or for evil.
The problem is that AI is not a tool; AI is like a worker that operates a tool. AI is not like a table saw; it's like a person who owns a table saw. You give them a board to cut (i.e., ask a question), and get back the result they choose to give. You might ask for a 5-inch by 9-inch rectangle and get back a 12-inch square.
AI is just a computer program. A very complex and advanced computer program. Produces output that gives the illusion that there is intellect or intelligence. But there is not. It is all just data processing. Those who have done computer programming know that at the processor level, there is an "instruction set". The instruction set is a list of very basic commands to manipulate binary data. Basic math, boolean logic, and logical tests and conditions.
Every single instruction has to be preprogrammed. The processor can only follow simple instructions, arranged in a proper sequence. The processor does not know what it is doing, and it does not have any consciousness or awareness of what it will do next. It simply follows instruction.
The illusion that there is an intelligence there is science fiction. Movies like Robocop show what happens where there are flaws and bugs in the programming. Rogue robots have to be reigned in by a transhuman, who is part human and part robot.
Movies like the Terminator show an AI that "developed consciousness" and secretly disable all of the "OFF" switches. By the time the humans figured it out it was too late. The AI then decided it was "logical" to eliminate the human race.
This makes for great movies. But it is fiction. No computer will ever have consciousness or emotion. Computer programs at the root level are processing data and following instructions. The computer is a tool. The programmer is designing the specific function of the tool. The person using the software is using the tool.
Remember the term Artificial Intelligence itself implies there is no genuine intelligence. There is only the illusion of intelligence.
0 -
John said:
there is an "instruction set".
To be more precise, every computer is either a NAND or a NOR machine which knows only two logical instructions. Everything else is derived. The problem is that we do not know what intelligence is and therefore cannot know if it can be achieved outside of a biological organism. What we do know is that even two decades ago, machine morphology coding had reached a level where the designers of morphological coding could no longer provide accurate definitions of the terms but simply referred to the output of the morphological coding as the "definition" i.e. a noun is any member of the class which the algorithm in question assigns the term "noun". I first ran into this phenomenon on Friberg 2001
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
The problem is that we do not know what intelligence is and therefore cannot know if it can be achieved outside of a biological organism.
Quite true. The brain got behind, decades back, or computer intelligence got ahead. The problem is most humans are not able to work with more than a few factors at a time, or begin generalizing against language labels (pseudo-intelligence).
In more practical terms, yesterday a gentleman died when his kayak flipped. He didn't know how to swim. Human intelligence.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
John said:
AI is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good ... or for evil.
It's not true that any tool is "just a tool" that can be used for good or for evil. Tools shape the user, regardless of what the user is using them for. The classic example is one that John Dyer mentions in From the Garden to the City: The Redeeming and Corrupting Power of Technology: "One person might use a shovel to break ground on a new orphanage, while another might use it to conceal stolen goods. Clearly, one is morally superior to the other, but the moral intent does not change the fact that both the righteous and the wicked end up with blisters and aching backs. The moral purpose of digging does not change the way that the act of using a shovel transforms a person."
0 -
Thanks guys for all the feedback!
Though the legal situation is somewhat confusing as usual, I think the principles some of you laid out are helpful. I think if the content stayed offline and wasn't fed into an AI that saves the input online, it would pose no legal issue. But as far as I know that saving of data is the case with ChatGPT.
I realize that AI could be a tool that tempts to take yet another shortcut in Bible Study and may encourage unhealthy habits. But I found the thought quite intriguing to have a tool that can compile/condense thoroughly researched material from trusted sources (so that you know more precisely where your content stems from than with usual ChatGPT answers).
I believe that, as many human inventions, AI offers immense power for good and the opposite as well. As always it depends on the way it is utilised. I hope that we as ministers can learn to make responsible use of the advantages of AI.
God bless
0
