Authors using a new tool to search a list of 183,000 books used to train AI are furious to find their works on the list.

  • LEX@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Any AI model that uses publically available information for training should be open source by law.

    This business where corporations (that includes authors, who are published by huge corporations) fight over who “owns” ideas is assinine. When it comes down to it, this is a fight about money being wrapped in an argument about “ideas.”

    AI models were developed with the collective knowledge and wisdom of society. They’re like libraries and should be public like libraries. OpenAI, Google, all those fucks should be forced to open source their models, end of story.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trick is educating the octogenarians in the senate to understand any of what you just wrote.

      • LEX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup! My ideas about what should happen are so far removed from what will actually happen they could be Planet X.

        But that doesn’t make me wrong, dammit!

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say they should have to follow the most-restrictive license of all of their training data, and that existing CC/FOSS licenses don’t count because they were designed for use in a pre-LLM world.

      It seems like a pretty reasonable request. But people like free stuff, and when they think about who will get screwed by this they like to imagine that they’re sticking it to the biggest publishers of mass media.

      But IRL, those publishers are giddy with the idea that instead of scouting artists and bullying them into signing over their IP, they can just summon IP on demand.

      The people who will suffer are the independents who refused to sign over their IP. They never got their payday, and now they never will either.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think we just need to ban the ability to copyright any AI output. Unless you can prove you created, and or paid for the rights for every piece of training data, I don’t see how it’s fair. Even then, there are still arguments against letting AI create IP.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The people I’m seeing outraged are artists and authors who did not sign their ideas over for public access or for disingenuous use. not a faceless publisher with cloth bags and dollar signs painted on them. Also I don’t think you understand what public and private ownership means. A person is allowed to privately own their own creation. They don’t owe that to the world. The world isn’t entitled to it.