this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
1570 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59597 readers
2876 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 9) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bender223@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

These people are supposedly the smart people in our society. The leaders of industry, but they whine and complain when they are told not to cheat or break the law.

If y'all are so smart, then figure out a different way of creating an A.I. Maybe the large language model, or whatever, isn't the approach you should use. 🤦‍♂️

[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, but because our government views technological dominance as a National Security issue we can be sure that this will come to nothing bc China Bad™.

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Copyright =/= liscence, so long as they arent reproducing the inputs copyright isnt applicable to AI.

That said they should have to make sure they arent reproducing inputs. Shouldnt be hard.

[–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

Seems the same as a band being influenced by other bands that came before them. How many bands listened to Metallica and used those ideas to create new music?

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

I can already tell this is going to be a unpopular opinion judging by the comments but this is my ideology on it

it's totally true. I'm indifferent on it, if it was acquired by a public facing source I don't really care, but like im definitly against using data dumps or data that wasn't available to the public in the first place. The whole thing with AI is rediculous, it's the same as someone going to a website and making a mirror, or a reporter making an article that talks about what's in it, last three web search based AI's even gave sources for where it got the info. I don't get the argument.

if it's image based AI, well it's the equivalent to an artist going to an art museum and deciding they want to replicate the art style seen in a painting. Maybe they shouldn't be in a publishing field if they don't want their work seen/used. That's my ideology on it it's not like the AI is taking a one-to-one copy and selling the artwork as , which in my opinion is a much more harmful instance and already happens commonly in today's art world, it's analyzing existing artwork which was available through the same means that everyone else had of going online loading up images and scraping the data. By this logic, artist should not be allowed to enter any art based websites museums or galleries, since by looking at others are they are able to adjust their own art which is stealing the author's work. I'm not for or against it but, the ideology is insane to me.

[–] deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

Agreed. I don't understand how training LLM on publicly available data is an issue. As you says, it doesn't copy the work. Rather the data is used as "inspiration" to stay in the art analogy.

Maybe I'm ignorant. Would love to be proven wrong. Right now it seems to me that failing media publishers are trying to do a money grab and use copyright as an argument, even though their data/material isn't getting illegally reproduced.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›