• dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    One of the largest communities on Lemmy is [email protected], so I’m not really surprised that there’s people that don’t care about copyright :)

    On the other hand, if a human is allowed to write a summary of a book, why should an AI not be allowed to do the same thing? Are they going to sue cliffnotes too?

    • fulano@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hold on, piracy isn’t necessarily not caring about copyright, but can be (and is, in a lot of cases), about fighting against the big corporations who take advantage of historically abusive copyright laws to dominate the market and prevent small authors and companies from surviving.

      These AI companies, despite being copyright violators, are much closer to the big IP monopolists than the small authors, which are victims of both groups.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        about fighting against the big corporations who take advantage of historically abusive copyright laws to dominate the market and prevent small authors and companies from surviving.

        If people were really that principled, they’d totally boycott the big corporations and only consume media from the small authors and companies.

        • fulano@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You made a great point. This is exactly my issue with piracy. I believe it’s a movement in the wrong direction, because it actually benefits the big media in the end.

    • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      My main point is that if people don’t want their content used for training LLMs they should absolutely have the option to not have their content used to train LLMs.

      Training databases should be ethically sourced from opt in programs, that some companies are already doing, such as Adobe.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My main point is that if people don’t want their content used for training LLMs they should absolutely have the option to not have their content used to train LLMs.

        How can one prove that their content is being used to train the LLM though, rather than something that’s derivative of their content like reviews of it?

        • Storksforlegs@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          there is already lots of evidence that they have scraped copyrighted art and photographs for their datasets.

        • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, the company has the training data, so I would imagine that will be part of discovery phase of the lawsuit.

          It will be a very quick case if OpenAI provides their training data and there is no data from Libgen and Z-library included in it.

    • Chahk@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      if a human is allowed to write a summary of a book, why should an AI not be allowed to do the same thing?

      Said human presumably would have to purchase or borrow a book in order to read it, which earns the author some percentage of the profits. If giant corps want to use the books to train their LLMs, it’s only fair that they’d have to negotiate with the publishers much like libraries do.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Said human presumably would have to purchase or lend a book in order to read it

        Borrowing a book from a library doesn’t earn the author any more profits for each time it’s lended out, I don’t think. My local library just buys books off Amazon.

        What if I read the CliffNotes and make my own summary based on that? What if I read someone else’s summary and reword it? I think that’s more like what ChatGPT is doing - I really don’t think it’s being fed entire copyrighted books as training data. There’s no actual proof LibGen or ZLib is being used to train it.

        • jursed@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          authors do get money from libraries that buy the books. and in some places they even get money depending on how much its checked out.