Isn't copyright about the right to make and distribute or sell copies or the lack there of? As long as they can prevent jailbreaking the AI, reading copyrighted material and learning from it to produce something else is not a copyright violation.
I'm less worried about a system that learns from the information and then incorporates it when it has to provide an answer (ex. learning facts) than I am of something that steals someone's likeness, something we've clearly have established people have a right to (ex. voice acting, action figures, and sports video games). And by that extension/logic, I am concerned as to whether AI that is trained to produce something in the style of someone else, especially in digital/visual art also violates the likeness principle logically and maybe even comes close to violating copyright law.
But at the same time, I'm a skeptic of software patents and api/UeX copyrighs. So I don't know. Shit gets complicated.
I still think AI should get rid of mundane, repetitive, boring tasks. But it shouldn't be eliminating creative, fun asks. It should improve productivity without replacing or reducing the value of the labor of the scientist/artist/physician. But if AI replaced scribes and constructionists in order to make doctors more productive and able to spend more time with patients instead of documenting everything, then that would be the ideal use of this stuff.
Yeah, but because our government views technological dominance as a National Security issue we can be sure that this will come to nothing bc China Bad™.
Copyright =/= liscence, so long as they arent reproducing the inputs copyright isnt applicable to AI.
That said they should have to make sure they arent reproducing inputs. Shouldnt be hard.
Seems the same as a band being influenced by other bands that came before them. How many bands listened to Metallica and used those ideas to create new music?
I can already tell this is going to be a unpopular opinion judging by the comments but this is my ideology on it
it's totally true. I'm indifferent on it, if it was acquired by a public facing source I don't really care, but like im definitly against using data dumps or data that wasn't available to the public in the first place. The whole thing with AI is rediculous, it's the same as someone going to a website and making a mirror, or a reporter making an article that talks about what's in it, last three web search based AI's even gave sources for where it got the info. I don't get the argument.
if it's image based AI, well it's the equivalent to an artist going to an art museum and deciding they want to replicate the art style seen in a painting. Maybe they shouldn't be in a publishing field if they don't want their work seen/used. That's my ideology on it it's not like the AI is taking a one-to-one copy and selling the artwork as , which in my opinion is a much more harmful instance and already happens commonly in today's art world, it's analyzing existing artwork which was available through the same means that everyone else had of going online loading up images and scraping the data. By this logic, artist should not be allowed to enter any art based websites museums or galleries, since by looking at others are they are able to adjust their own art which is stealing the author's work. I'm not for or against it but, the ideology is insane to me.
Agreed. I don't understand how training LLM on publicly available data is an issue. As you says, it doesn't copy the work. Rather the data is used as "inspiration" to stay in the art analogy.
Maybe I'm ignorant. Would love to be proven wrong. Right now it seems to me that failing media publishers are trying to do a money grab and use copyright as an argument, even though their data/material isn't getting illegally reproduced.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
