• webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The point that was being made was that public available data includes a whole lot amount of copyrighted data to begin with and its pretty much impossible to filter it out. Grand example, the Eiffel tower in Paris is not copyright protected, but the lights on it are so you can only using pictures of the Eiffel tower during the day, if the picture itself isn’t copyright protected by the original photographer. Copyright law has all these complex caveat and exception that make it impossible to tell in glance whether or not it is protected.

    This in turn means, if AI cannot legally train on copyrighted materials it finds online without paying huge sums of money then effectively only mega corporation who can pay copyright fines as cost of business will be able to afford training decent AI.

    The only other option to produce any ai of such type is a very narrow curated set of known materials with a public use license but that is not going to get you anything competent on its own.

    EDIT: In case it isn’t clear i am clarifying what i understood from [email protected] comment, not adding to it.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s insane logic…

      Like you’re essentially saying I can copy/paste any article without a paywall to my own blog and sell adspace on it…

      And your still saying OpenAI is trying to make AI companies pay?

      Like, do you think AI runs off free cloud services? The hardware is insanely expensive.

      And OpenAI is trying to argue the opposite, that AI companies shouldn’t have to pay to use copyrighted works.

      You have zero idea what is going on, but you are really confident you do

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I clarified the comment above which was misunderstood, whether it makes a moral/sane argument is subjective and i am not covering that.

        I am not sure why you think there is a claim that openAI is trying to make companies pay, on the contrary the comment i was clarifying (so not my opinion/words) states that openAI is making an argument that anyone should be able to use copyrighted materials for free to train AI.

        The costs of running an online service like chatgpt is wildly besides the argument presented. You can run your own open source large language models at home about as well as you can run Bethesda’s Starfield on a same spec’d PC

        Those Open source large language models are trained on the same collections of data including copyrighted data.

        The logic being used here is:

        If It becomes globally forbidden to train AI with copyrighted materials or there is a large price or fine in order to use them for training then the Non-Corporate, Free, Open Source Side of AI will perish or have to go underground while to the For-Profit mega corporations will continue exploit and train ai as usual because they can pay to settle in court.

        The Ethical dilemma as i understand it is:

        Allowing Ai to train for free is a direct threat towards creatives and a win for BigProfit Enthertainment, not allowing it to train to free is treat to public democratic AI and a win for BigTech merging with BigCrime

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          That is very well put, I really wish I could have started with that.

          Though I envision it as a loss for BigProfit Enthertainment since I see this as a real boon for the indie gaming, animation and eventually filmmaking industry.

          It’s definitely overall quite a messy situation.

    • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I didn’t want any of this shit. IDGAF if we don’t have AI. I’m still not sure the internet actually improved anything, let alone what the benefits of AI are supposed to be.

      • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        It doesn’t matter what you want. What matters is if corporations can extract $ from you, gain an efficiency, or cut their workforce using it.

        That’s what the drive for AI is all about.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You don’t have to use it. You can even disconnect from the internet completely.

        Whats the benefit of stopping me from using it?