211
How do I explain my reluctance to use generative AI in good faith? (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
149 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I want to let people know why I'm strictly against using AI in everything I do without sounding like an 'AI vegan', especially in front of those who are genuinely ready to listen and follow the same.

Any sources I try to find to cite regarding my viewpoint are either mild enough to be considered AI generated themselves or filled with extremist views of the author. I want to explain the situation in an objective manner that is simple to understand and also alarming enough for them to take action.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 9 months ago (12 children)

All current AIs are based on stolen content.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    If nothing is taken from anyone and no profit is made from a model trained on publicly accessible data - can you elaborate on how that constitutes theft?

    Actually - if 100% copy righted content is used to train a model, which is released for free and never monetized - is that theft?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    Publicly accessible does not mean it is free of copyright. Yes, copyright law in it's current form sucks and is in dire need to get reformed, preferably close to the original duration (14+14 years). But as the law currently stands, those LLM parrots are based on illegally acquired data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Publically accessible does not mean publically reusable. You can find a lot of classic songs on YouTube and in libraries. You can’t edit them into your Hollywood movie without paying royalties.

    Showing them to an AI for them to repeat the melody with 90% similarity is not a free cheat to get around that.

    This is in part why the GPL and other licenses exist. Linus didn’t just put up Linux and say “Do whatever!” He explicitly said “You MAY copy and modify this work, but it must keep this license, this ownership, and you may NOT sell the transformed work”. That is a critical part of many free licenses, to ensure people don’t abuse them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    If nothing is taken from anyone and no profit is made from a model trained on publicly accessible data - can you elaborate on how that constitutes theft?

    Actually - if 100% copy righted content is used to train a model, which is released for free and never monetized - is that theft?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Cool. So you're in support of developing a model that financially compensates all of the rights holders used for its training data then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •