Comment on The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 week agoYeah, making sandwiches also costs money! I have to pay my sandwich making employees to keep the business profitable! How do they expect me to pay for the cheese?
stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
They should pay for the cheese, I’m not arguing against that, but they should be paying it the same amount as a normal human would if they want access to that cheese. No extra fees for access to copyrighted material if you want to use it to train AI vs wanting to consume it yourself.
And I didn’t miss your point. My point was that the reality is already occurring since people are already suing OpenAI for ChatGPT outputs that the people suing are generating themselves, so it’s no longer just a hypothetical. We’ll see if it is a money making machine for them or will they just waste their resources from doing that.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Media is not exactly like cheese though. With cheese, you buy it and it’s yours. Media, however, is protected by copyright. When you watch a movie, you are given a license to watch the movie.
When an AI watches a movie, it’s not really watching it, it’s doing a different action. If the license of the movie says “you can’t use this license to train AI, use the other (more expensive) license for such purposes”, then AIs have extra fees to access the content that humans don’t have to pay.
stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Both humans and AI consume the content, even if they do not do so in the exact same way. I don’t see the need to differentiate that. It’s not like we have any idea of the mechanism by which humans consume a content to make the differentiation in the first place.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Don’t need to get philosophical about what is the difference between human and AI learning.
“Consumed by AI” and “consumed by a human” are two distinct use cases that can have different terms in a license.