this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
77 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
3138 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I’m very interested in this case and am curious to see where the courts draw the line here.

Beware of an incoming hot take - I don’t see the concept of training AI on published works as much different than a human learning from published works as long as they both go on to make their own original works. I have definitely seen AIs straight-up plagiarize before, but that seems like a different issue entirely from producing similar works. I think allowing plagiarism is a problem with the constraints of the training rather than a fundamental problem with the entire concept of AI training.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Beware of an incoming hot take - I don’t see the concept of training AI on published works as much different than a human learning from published works as long as they both go on to make their own original works.

The fact that this is considered a "hot take" is depressing.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s much less of a hot take for people in the tech community, but it is for many artists and creatives who feel threatened by AI’s potential to devalue what they’ve dedicated their lives to.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should have felt threatened by the sheer weight of an incredibly oversaturated industry, sabotaging itself with a system that rewards the lucky and punishes 99.99% of the people that try to get into it. Everybody else who "made it" are practicing survivorship bias to justify their career choices.

Leaps in AI technology was just another barbell added to the pile.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A standard I could see being applied is one that I think has some precedent, where if the work it is supposed to be similar to is anywhere in the training set then it's a copyright violation. One of the valid defenses against copyright claims in court is that the defendant reasonably could have been unaware of the original work, and that seems to me like a reasonable equivalent.

These dumb fucks should go ahead and sue Google, then, if searching and providing song lyrics is considered copyright infringement.