• SinJab0n@mujico.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Exactly this, this is the equivalent of me taking a movie, making a function, charge for it, and then be displeased when the creators demand an explanation about it.

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s more like reading a book and then charging people to ask you questions about it.

      AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. We can already train our own open source models, so we should let people put up barriers that will keep out all but the ultra-wealthy.

      • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more like reading a book and then charging people to ask you questions about it.

        No, it’s really nothing like reading at all. Your example requires a human element. This is just the consumption of data, not reading.

          • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think that it is even remotely close to being the same thing. I’m sorry but we shouldn’t be affording companies the ability to profit off other people’s creations without their consent, regardless of how current copyright law works.

            Acting as though a human writing a summary is the same thing as a vast network of computers processing data at a speed that is hundreds if not thousands times faster than a human is foolish. Perhaps it is also foolish to try and apply our current copyright laws (which already favour large corporations and not individual creators) to this slew of new technology, but just ignoring the fundamental difference between the two is no way of going about it. We need copyright reform, we need protections for creators, and we need to stop acting as though machine learning algorithms are remotely comparable to humans both in their capabilities, responsibilities and rights.

            There is a perfectly reasonable way of doing this ethically, and that is using content that people have provided to the model of their own volition with their consent either volunteered or paid for, but not scraped from an epub, regardless of if you bought it or downloaded it from libgen.

            There are already companies training machine learning models ethically in this manner, and if creators do not want their content used as training data, it should not be.

      • gus@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it’s more like checking out every book from the library, and spending 450 years training at the speed of light, being evaluated on how well you can exactly reproduce the next part of any snippet taken from any book.