this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
380 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59314 readers
4798 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
 

GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I see way too many people advocating for copyright. I understand in this case it benefits big companies rather than consumers, but if you disagree with copyright, as I do, you should be consistent.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Copyright law should benefit humans, not machines, not corporations. And no, corporations are not people. Anthony Kennedy can get bent.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I hate the MAGMA companies as much as anyone, but AI such as LLMs, especially the open source stuff Facebook and Stable diffusion is making, is beneficial to us all.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

Abolishing copyright in the way that allows for the existence of Gen AI benefits people far more than it does corpos

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You don't have to be against copyright, as such. Fair Use is part of copyright law. It exists to prevent copyrights from being abused against the interests of the general public.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But I am against any copyright beyond forcing attribution to the original creator.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)
[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Here's your works cited for any generative AI:

Humanity. “The Entire Publicly Accessible Internet .” The World Wide Web, , 1 Jan. 1983, WWW.org.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 9 months ago

I doubt that covers it.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

AI creators, at least the open source ones, are usually pretty open about where they got the training data for their model

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

At the very least, every AI should be able to spit out a comprehensive list of all the material it used for training. And it should be capable of removing any specific item and regenerating its algorithm.

This is a fundamental requirement of the technology itself to function. What happens if one the training materials has a retraction? Or if the authors admit they used AI to generate it? You need to purge that knowledge to keep the AI healthy and accurate.