Comment on AI Didn't Break Copyright Law, It Just Exposed How Broken It Already Was
user28282912@piefed.social 2 days ago
The content produced by humans was scraped en-masse for the explicit purpose of training models which were then monetized into business products.
I struggle to reconcile that with Fair Use.
I can see if the source was EULA’d to remove all rights to what you post to things like Reddit, Stack Overflow, and if somehow those entities were contacted ahead of time and negotiated usage. You, I and the web server logs know that this was almost never the case.
Postimo@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I think the core of the fair use argument is that the AI models that are being trained are transformative products of the original works.
Might be a hot take here but I basically agree. I still believe it was theft and that the realities of the legal framework we had don’t really stand up to the evolving problems, but under the current laws there is really no justification for saying that, taking the input of a bunch of images and giving the output of a set of statistical correlations of pixels based on descriptions, isn’t transformation.
red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
I agree. I think that all AI companies need to crash and burn. But it’d be disingenuous to claim that what these models are doing is completely different than what humans are doing. Humans don’t pull stuff out of thin air. We are products of our upbringing and schooling. I say that, because I hate our current copyright laws with a burning passion and have done so long before LLMs showed up. It’s possible to hate copyright and AI companies.
neclimdul@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
2 points to consider.
I don’t think llms are without value, but treating them like they think or create new things is the problem imho.