Comment on Authors Are Furious After Finding Their Works on List of Books Used To Train AI

Soundhole@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• dangblingus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Trick is educating the octogenarians in the senate to understand any of what you just wrote.

  source

  • Soundhole@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yup! My ideas about what should happen are so far removed from what will actually happen they could be Planet X.

    But that doesn’t make me wrong, dammit!

    source
  • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    One less to educate now. Hopefully replaced by someone that doesn’t need diapers.

    source
• kibiz0r@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I’d say they should have to follow the most-restrictive license of all of their training data, and that existing CC/FOSS licenses don’t count because they were designed for use in a pre-LLM world.

  It seems like a pretty reasonable request. But people like free stuff, and when they think about who will get screwed by this they like to imagine that they’re sticking it to the biggest publishers of mass media.

  But IRL, those publishers are giddy with the idea that instead of scouting artists and bullying them into signing over their IP, they can just summon IP on demand.

  The people who will suffer are the independents who refused to sign over their IP. They never got their payday, and now they never will either.

  source

  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think we just need to ban the ability to copyright any AI output. Unless you can prove you created, and or paid for the rights for every piece of training data, I don’t see how it’s fair. Even then, there are still arguments against letting AI create IP.

    source
• Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The people I’m seeing outraged are artists and authors who did not sign their ideas over for public access. not a faceless publisher with cloth bags and dollar signs painted on them. Also I don’t think you understand what public and private ownership means. A person is allowed to privately own their own creation. They don’t owe that to the world. The world isn’t entitled to it.

  source
• GBU_28@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  You can do this open source right now

  source
• lloram239@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  should be open source by law.

  That doesn’t make sense. The “source” of the AI model is the publically available information, which the creators have to right to redistribute.

  The rules of Open Source simply do not work for AI models. You’d have to come up with some other rules.

  source

  • Soundhole@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    My friend, there are already numerous open source models out there. It’s a thing.

    source

    • lloram239@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The whole legal situation around AI models isn’t clear and common Open Source licenses are an ill fit for them because you aren’t distributing the source, but just a binary blob. You can’t just take any random accumulation of data and slap a Open Source license on it, especially when that accumulation is the result of proprietary data, incompatible licenses and all that.

      Most people don’t care and just remix everything as they please, but just because you can download for free something doesn’t make it Open Source. Furthermore a lot of the models exclude commercial use or otherwise restrict the use in ways that are incompatible with the Open Source definition.

      Has any of the model made it into Debian yet?

      source

      • Soundhole@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Oh, okay. Well you should tell IBM that, they’re clearly confused.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • dack@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What do you define as “source” for an AI model? Training code? Training data set?

      source
  • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yeah, it ought to be owned by the people who contributed the work that trained it. But that’s socialism. … No really, that would literally be socialism.

    source