4 ms·
I do! If they aren't in some way public domain, then the authors should have a say, or be if the work is purchased. I have a bit of cognitive dissonance on the
by spoiler 4y ago
I do! If they aren't in some way public domain, then the authors should have a say, or be if the work is purchased.
I have a bit of cognitive dissonance on the subject of blog posts or articles in general, since those are kinda public domain? But I still think it should be opt in/out-able.
I realise I'm also a bit of a hypocrite since I've enjoyed playing with these AI tools myself, and I realise they'd be nowhere as cool if they didn't have access to such large datasets.
- lelandfe 4y agoIANAL: Authorship is protected in the US by default https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers https://www.copyright.gov/engage/writers In order for blog posts (or other written works) to be in the public domain, authors must explicitly waive those rights. But, not that it needs saying, copyright's applicability in training data is basically the entire subject of debate right now. https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-generative-ai/ https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-gen...
- spoiler 4y agoAh, I had no idea that was protected too! That's good. I think the reason I was morally on the fence was that people already put blog posts out with the intent of sharing their knowledge with the rest of the Internet... So my assumption was that anything trained on it will just help further expand that knowledge. Although I do realise now as I'm typing this—AI could diminish their audience, clout and motivation, which isn't what I'd want.