• gcheliotis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That machine is a commercial product. Quite unlike a human being, in essence, purpose and function. So I do not think the comparison is valid here unless it were perhaps a sentient artificial being, free to act of its own accord. But that is not what we’re talking about here. We must not be carried away by our imaginations, these language models are (often proprietary and for profit) products.

    • Falmarri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see how that’s relevant. A company can pay someone to read copyrighted work, learn from it, and then perform a task for the benefit of the company related to the learning.

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

        But how did that person acquire the copyrighted work? Was the copyrighted material paid for?

        That’s the crux of the issue, Open AI isn’t paying for the copyrighted work they are “reading”, are they?

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

          What does paying for anything have to do with what we’re talking about here. They’re ingesting freely available content, that anyone with a web browser could read