Technology

59440 readers

5898 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

529

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

311 comments fedilink hide all child comments

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says::Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 85 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (42 children)

¿Porque no los dos?

I don't understand why people are defending AI companies sucking up all human knowledge by saying "well, yeah, copyrights are too long anyway".

Even if we went back to the pre-1976 term of 28 years, renewable once for a total of 56 years, there's still a ton of recent works that AI are using without any compensation to their creators.

I think it's because people are taking this "intelligence" metaphor a bit too far and think if we restrict how the AI uses copyrighted works, that would restrict how humans use them too. But AI isn't human, it's just a glorified search engine. At least all standard search engines do is return a link to the actual content. These AI models chew up the content and spit out something based on it. It simply makes sense that this new process should be licensed separately, and I don't care if it makes some AI companies go bankrupt. Maybe they can work adequate payment for content into their business model going forward.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (11 children)

I don't understand why people are defending AI companies

Because it's not just big companies that are affected; it's the technology itself. People saying you can't train a model on copyrighted works are essentially saying nobody can develop those kinds of models at all. A lot of people here are naturally opposed to the idea that the development of any useful technology should be effectively illegal.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (6 children)

You can make these models just fine using licensed data. So can any hobbyist.

You just can’t steal other people’s creations to make your models.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Of course it sounds bad when you using the word "steal", but I'm far from convinced that training is theft, and using inflammatory language just makes me less inclined to listen to what you have to say.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Training is theft imo. You have to scrape and store the training data, which amounts to copyright violation based on replication. It’s an incredibly simple concept. The model isn’t the problem here, the training data is.