354
Hot take: LLM technology is being purposefully framed as AI to avoid accountability (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Which of the following sounds more reasonable?

  • I shouldn't have to pay for the content that I use to tune my LLM model and algorithm.

  • We shouldn't have to pay for the content we use to train and teach an AI.

By calling it AI, the corporations are able to advocate for a position that's blatantly pro corporate and anti writer/artist, and trick people into supporting it under the guise of a technological development.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

What about LLM generated content that was then edited by a human? Surely authors shouldn't lose copyright over an entire book just because they enlisted the help of LLMs for the first draft.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    If you take open source code using GNU GPL and modify it, it retains the GNU GPL license. It's like saying it's fine to take a book and just change some words and it's totally not plagerism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Public domain is not infectious like GPL is. That being said, it seems like the parent comment has already mentioned this case, now that I’ve read them again:

    public domain content can already be edited and combined and arranged to create copyrighted content

    That’s fine by me. The important thing is that humans can still use AI as a legally recognized productivity tool, including using it as a way to use ideas and styles generated by other humans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent