this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
69098 readers
4321 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So was it trained on his work without his approval?
That should be the headline. Assuming it was done without consent, which lets face it, it most likely was.
Edit: It came to my attention that Japan has a more open stance to AI training on copyright materials. It does however say that
Not a laywer but all these memes created by the ChatGPT look like creative expressions that mimic the style.
Read more here
Like all other AI and all the copyright in the world. Shareholders are ok with. Copyright for me, not for you. Pirates were the bad guys. These are the saviours we deserve.
If you listen to the red hot chili peppers or watch a marvel movie or look at a DC comic and then go and make a song, movie, or painting inspired by the style of a certain creator that does not mean you have somehow violated those creators copyright. You don't owe them any money because you took inspiration.
AI training on publicly available data does not infringe on copyright even if that data is somehow copyrighted.
And I know that many people on these kinds of platforms don't like to hear this but the benefits of AI outweighs any potential legal issues copyright might entail.
Moreover, and I keep pointing this out over and over, you can't have the same information free for individuals to use and have it paid for at the same time for corporations. You have to decide if you want that information free for all or for none.
Edit: yes yes. I know y'all don't like these facts and yet they're undisputed.
Who's watching marvel movies for free, legally? Who's listening to RHCP's entire discography for free, legally?
Not the people training AI, they've been caught pirating their data multiple times.
No one is. That's exactly the point.
Llms aren't recreating copyrighted works. They're drawing inspiration if you will. No copyright is being infringed.
And how is an LLM trained to "draw inspiration" from an author without reading their books?
That's exactly what it is. But it's not replicating the book to sell that same book to generate profit the author of the book won't get.
It's using the information in the book to generate its own data.
Are you aware of how llms work?
Ok, so if the LLM was trained by reading the books, then the LLM creators should have to buy a copy of the books, right?
Because right now the creators are pirating the books to feed into the machine.
If the people who make llms are illegally acquiring copywrited material without paying for it then the creators of the llms should be held accountable by the authority figures that govern such crimes and infringments. Absolutely. That was never in question or a relevant point in this discussion.
You're the one saying that copywrite shouldn't exist and you should be able to use all and any material you wish for any reason at any time.
Insane American copywrite laws not withstanding copywrite generally protects the creators of their work from others profiting off of it.
That is literally the point of this comment thread, go back and reread it.