• Overzeetop@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, lots of normal people due this not for profit, which is just as damning in the eyes of copyright.

    But what if they had done this in a legitimate fashion - say they got a library account and just ordered the books one by one, read them in, and then returned the books. As I understand it (which is not very well, tbh) the LLM don’t keep a copy of the original reference. They use the works to determine paths and branches in what I assume is a quasi-statistical approach (ie stable diffusion associates characteristics with words, but once the characteristics are stored in the model the original is effectively discarded and can’t actually be recreated, except in the way a child might reproduce a picture from memory.)

    If the dataset is not, in fact, stored, would the authors still have a case?

    • bedrooms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe this should be allowed, honestly. For, it’s dangerous to disallow. I mean, there are dictatorships training their AIs, and they won’t care about copyrights. That’s gonna be an advantage for them, and the west should feed the same information.

      We don’t need to allow Steven King, but scientific and engineering articles, sure.

        • bedrooms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but the problem is that the authors of closed articles did sign a copyright transfer agreement (because they basically had no other option). Government cannot and should not override it against the will of the business companies. And this extends to the public.

          For these closed articles it’s the authors’ burden to release the draft. That act is almost always permitted by the signed agreement.