this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
351 points (91.7% liked)
Technology
58833 readers
5833 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wait people think that sounds reasonable?
I do. If it's publicly available, individuals should be able to learn from it. Artists don't pay their influences that helped develop their style, we don't pay the programmers that answer questions on stack overflow
Hell, I'm not sure generative AI should have to pay for training data at all. It points to a weakness in the system, and it doesn't fix it - the field is getting away from needing existing datasets. GPT4 swallowed everything worth swallowing, and it's already training GPT4.5. This would only make it harder for new players to compete in the generative AI space
It can't profit only the few, it's too big a force multiplier. Paying up front doesn't fix it, recurring payments don't fix it... That's nothing but a payoff to a few people as this starts to eat the best parts of the job market
We need to think much bigger - we need to look at how we handle ownership as a society
Struggling to sort out my thoughts on this one.
I'm not really sure comparing AI to a human artist learning and being inspired by others quite fits. At least in the context of a commercial AI (one that a company charges others to use). It feels scummy for a company (for profit entity) to steal training data from others without consent, and then turn around and charge people for the product they built on that stolen content.
That said, existing copyright law allows for 'fair use', which includes educational purposes. In that light, AI companies could be seen as a sort of AI school program. But the icky part to me, is that AI is not a person. It can't choose to leave the school. That school can then profit off that student forever and ever.
I feel like the fair use argument for education applies to humans, not AI (at least not till they actually gain sapience). AI are machines that can be leveraged and exploited by the few and powerful, and that power should come without us subsidizing their development.
Though honestly it's sort of a moot point, because it's already done and we're very unlikely to ever properly charge them now. And now that they have the start, they have a leg up on everyone else. So the morality of how it was built no longer really matters, unless we want to argue AI should all be open source or public domain.