• mimavox@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The more important question is: Why can a human absorb a ton of material in their learning without anyone crying about them “stealing”? Why shouldn’t the same go for AI? What’s the difference? I really don’t understand the common mindset here. Is it because a trained AI is used for profit?

    • plc@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Is it because a trained AI is used for profit?

      Absolutely. But especially because it skews the market dynamic. Copyright doesn’t exist for moral reasons but financial reasons.

    • brot@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      There is a difference between me reading a book and learning from it and one of the biggest companies in the world pirating millions of books for their business. And it really gets bad when normal users are getting sued for tenthousands of dollars when they download a book or a MP3 and Meta is getting defended for doing the same thing, but in a much larger scale.

      Yes, we know that copyright is broken. But if it is broken, it has to be broken for all

    • Monstrosity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      What you’re talking about is if AI is actually inventing new work (imo, yes it is), but that’s not the issue.

      The issue is these models were trained on our collective knowledge & culture without permission, then sold back to us.

      Unless they use only proprietary & public training data, every single one of these models should be open sourced/weighted & free for anyone to use, like libraries.

    • chaosCruiser@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’ve been thinking about that as well. If an author has bought 500 books, and read them, it’s obviously going to influence the books they write in the future. There’s nothing illegal about that. Then again, they did pay for the books, so I guess that makes it fine.

      What if they got the books from a library? Well, they probably also paid taxes, so that makes it ok.

      What if they pirated those books? In that case, the pirating part is problematic, but I don’t think anyone will sue the author for copying the style of LOTR in their own works.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      It is because a human artist is usually inspired and uses knowledge to create new art and AI is just a mediocre mimic. A human artist doesn’t accidentally put six fingers on people on a regular basis. If they put fewer fingers it is intentional.

      • mimavox@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That’s where I don’t agree. I don’t subscribe to the view that LLMs merely are “stochastic parrots”.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          What do you think they are if not that?

          They don’t have emotions, they don’t have individual motivations, and don’t have intent.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        If your argument is that it depends on the quality of the output, then I definitely shouldn’t be allowed to look at art or read books.