OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

    • otherbastard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      An LLM is not a person, it is a product. It doesn’t matter that it “learns” like a human - at the end of the day, it is a product created by a corporation that used other people’s work, with the capacity to disrupt the market that those folks’ work competes in.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And it should be able to freely use anything that’s available to it. These massive corporations and entities have exploited all the free spaces to advertise and sell us their own products and are now sour.

        If they had their way they are going to lock up much more of the net behind paywalls. Everybody should be with the LLMs on this.

        • otherbastard@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are somehow conflating “massive corporation” with “independent creator,” while also not recognizing that successful LLM implementations are and will be run by massive corporations, and eventually plagued with ads and paywalls.

          People that make things should be allowed payment for their time and the value they provide their customer.

          • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            People are paid. But they’re greedy and expect far more compensation then they deserve. In this case they should not be compensated for having an LLM ingest their work work if that work was legally owned or obtained

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except the massive corporations and entities are the ones getting rich on this. They’re seeking to exploit the work of authors and musicians and artists.

          Respecting the intellectual property of creative workers is the anti corporate position here.

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

            Except corporations have infinitely more resources(money, lawyers) compared to people who create. Take Jarek Duda(mathematician from Poland) and Microsoft as an example. He created new compression algorythm, and Microsoft came few years later and patented it in Britain AFAIK. To file patent contest and prior art he needs 100k£.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think there’s an important distinction to make here between patents and copyright. Patents are the issue with corporations, and I couldn’t care less if AI consumed all that.

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

                And for copyright there is no possible way to contest it. Also when copyright expires there is no guarantee it will be accessable by humanity. Patents are bad, copyright even worse.

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

            There is nothing anti corporate if result can be alienated.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they had their way they are going to lock up much more of the net behind paywalls.

          This!

          When the Internet was first a thing corpos tried to put everything behind paywalls, and we pushed back and won.

          Now, the next generation is advocating to put everything behind a paywall again?

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          First, we don’t have to make AI.

          Second, it’s not about it being unable to learn, it’s about the fact that they aren’t paying the people who are teaching it.

            • FatCrab@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The reasoning that claims training a generative model is infringing IP would still mean a robot going into a library with a card it has to optically read all the books there to create the same generative model would still be infringing IP.

            • AncientMariner@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Humans can judge information make decisions on it and adapt it. AI mostly just looks at what is statistically what is most likely based on training data. If 1 piece of data exists, it will copy, not paraphrase. Example was from I think copilot where it just printed out the code and comments from an old game verbatim. I think Quake2. It isn’t intelligence, it is statistical copying.

              • uis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, mathematics cannot be copyrighted. In most countries at least.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              because it might hurt authors and musicians and artists and other creative workers

              FTFY. Corporations shouldn’t be making a fucking dime from any of these works without fairly paying the creators.