Which of the following sounds more reasonable?

  • I shouldn’t have to pay for the content that I use to tune my LLM model and algorithm.

  • We shouldn’t have to pay for the content we use to train and teach an AI.

By calling it AI, the corporations are able to advocate for a position that’s blatantly pro corporate and anti writer/artist, and trick people into supporting it under the guise of a technological development.

  • kklusz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    42·
    1 year ago

    What about LLM generated content that was then edited by a human? Surely authors shouldn’t lose copyright over an entire book just because they enlisted the help of LLMs for the first draft.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      32·
      1 year ago

      If you take open source code using GNU GPL and modify it, it retains the GNU GPL license. It’s like saying it’s fine to take a book and just change some words and it’s totally not plagerism.

      • kklusz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Public domain is not infectious like GPL is. That being said, it seems like the parent comment has already mentioned this case, now that I’ve read them again:

        public domain content can already be edited and combined and arranged to create copyrighted content

        That’s fine by me. The important thing is that humans can still use AI as a legally recognized productivity tool, including using it as a way to use ideas and styles generated by other humans.