I feel like one of thr problem is LLMs hijacked the definition of AI. Like another comment said, the way they trained on copyrighted material, it's probably not possible. But imagine there was another model (not necessarily LLM) and it was trained with completely public domain material. For example maybe something trained to find genetic diseases from genetic samples of a person, or detecting asteroids from telescope images. Those could become open source. Now, I am not an expert, but do we consider those AI?

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean you could a still do generative AI on voices of actors in really old movies that are in the public domain

[–] astro_ray@lemdro.id 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Exactly what I wanted to say. Anything on public domain; movies, books, pictures and paintings should be fair game. Including any databases that allows the uses of it in the given context.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 2 points 4 months ago

Public domain audiobooks too like LibriVox!

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah that's a lot of data

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 2 points 4 months ago

@astro_ray @marvelous_coyote It seems you have the incorrect idea about what open-source means, which is quite sad here in the open-source lemmy community. Being trained on public domain material does NOT make the model open-source. It's about the license - what the recipients of the model are allowed to do with it - open-source must allow derivative works and commercial use, on top of seeing the code, but for LLM models the "code" is just a bunch of float numbers, nothing interesting to see.