Interesting decision

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

    Right, the phrasing is “copyright-infringing AI assets” rather than a much more controversial “all AI assets, due to copyright-infringement concerns.”

    I do think there’s a bigger discussion that we need to have about the ethics and legality of AI training and generation. These models can reproduce exact copies of existing works (see: Speak, Memory: An Archaeology of Books Known to ChatGPT/GPT-4).

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

      Sure, but plagiarism isn’t unique to LLMs. I could get an AI to produce something preexisting word for word, but that’s on my use of the model, not on the LLM.

      I get the concerns about extrapolating how to create works similar to those made by humans from actual human works, but that’s how people learn to make stuff too. We experience art and learn from it in order to enrich our lives, and to progress as artists ourselves.

      To me, the power put into the hands of creators to work without the need for corporate interference is well worth the consideration of LLMs learning from the things we’re all putting out there in public.

      • TeddyTi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not unique to LLMs, but the issues are always the same: how to check if there is plagiatism, and who to blame.