• Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The matter is not LLMs reproducing what they have learned, it is that they didn’t pay for the books they read, like people are supposed to do legally.

    This is not about free use, this is about free access, which at the scale of an individual reading books is marketed as “piracy”…at the scale of reading all books known to man…it’s onmipiracy?

    We need some kind of deal where commercial LLMs have to pay a rent to a fund that distributes that among creators or remain nonprofit, which is never gonnna happen, because it’ll be a bummer for all the grifters rushing into that industry.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think we need to re-examine what copyright should be. There’s nothing inherently immoral about “piracy” when the original creator gets almost nothing for their work after the initial release.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      it is that they didn’t pay for the books they read, like people are supposed to do legally.

      If I can read a book from a library, why shouldn’t OpenAI or anybody else?

      …but yes from what I’ve heard they (or whoever, don’t remember) actually trained on libgen. OpenAI can be scummy without the general process of feeding AI books you only have read access to being scummy.