Comment

Comment on AI Didn't Break Copyright Law, It Just Exposed How Broken It Already Was

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

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.

source
- neclimdul@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  2 points to consider.
  
  Humans can’t digest the entirety of the internet
  
  Humans transform through lived experience. At worst current ai is just the statistical correlation of existing information at best you could say a model is trained by a humans experience. Neither are the same.
  
  I don’t think llms are without value, but treating them like they think or create new things is the problem imho.
  
  source