this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
528 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
3004 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says::Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 85 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (42 children)

¿Porque no los dos?

I don't understand why people are defending AI companies sucking up all human knowledge by saying "well, yeah, copyrights are too long anyway".

Even if we went back to the pre-1976 term of 28 years, renewable once for a total of 56 years, there's still a ton of recent works that AI are using without any compensation to their creators.

I think it's because people are taking this "intelligence" metaphor a bit too far and think if we restrict how the AI uses copyrighted works, that would restrict how humans use them too. But AI isn't human, it's just a glorified search engine. At least all standard search engines do is return a link to the actual content. These AI models chew up the content and spit out something based on it. It simply makes sense that this new process should be licensed separately, and I don't care if it makes some AI companies go bankrupt. Maybe they can work adequate payment for content into their business model going forward.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago (11 children)

I don't understand why people are defending AI companies

Because it's not just big companies that are affected; it's the technology itself. People saying you can't train a model on copyrighted works are essentially saying nobody can develop those kinds of models at all. A lot of people here are naturally opposed to the idea that the development of any useful technology should be effectively illegal.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I am not saying you can't train on copyrighted works at all, I am saying you can't train on copyrighted works without permission. There are fair use exemptions for copyright, but training AI shouldn't apply. AI companies will have to acknowledge this and get permission (probably by paying money) before incorporating content into their models. They'll be able to afford it.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What if I do it myself? Do I still need to get permission? And if so, why should I?

I don't believe the legality of doing something should depend on who's doing it.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yes you would need permission. Just because you’re a hobbyist doesn’t mean you’re exempt from needing to follow the rules.

As soon as it goes beyond a completely offline, personal, non-replicatible project, it should be subject to the same copyright laws.

If you purely create a data agnostic AI model and share the code, there’s no problem, as you’re not profiting off of the training data. If you create an AI model that’s available for others to use, then you’d need to have the licensing rights to all of the training data.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)