4 ms·

> Why is everyone in AI so open to stealing people's work Because it is no more "stealing" than when a human learns from other people's work, and then makes a

by stale2002 4y ago

> Why is everyone in AI so open to stealing people's work Because it is no more "stealing" than when a human learns from other people's work, and then makes a profit off of it. > the companies owning it must play by the rules Nobody has proven that they are breaking any rules.

gumballindie 4y ago
These arguments are a bit boring. Machine learning for a chat bot is not a person "learning". It's software. Also I hate to break it to you but humans also pay to learn. It's why books, universities and other learning content costs money one way or another.
- pixl97 4y ago
  >Machine learning for a chat bot is not a person "learning". It's software. I'd like you to learn more about LLMs then, because under the definition you want to make, you are 'software'. Also, we made libraries so people could learn for free without being beholden to their capitalist masters.
  - gumballindie 4y ago
    > we made libraries so people could learn for free without being beholden to their capitalist masters. Naturally. If you copy the "free" content from those libraries and resell it you are committing plagiarism. Just because something can mimick humans it doesn't meant they are humans. ML is just that, software. There's too much pareidolia out there in AI. Sad, because it's a great concept gradually getting bastardised.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      And if I learn something from that content and make a work of my own? I swear that people on this thread want to create the world envisioned in 'the right to read'.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Machine learning for a chat bot is not a person "learning". It's software. I am not saying that it is exactly the same. Instead, I am saying that if a human can profit from other people's work, by learning from it, then there are clearly exceptions to this idea that using other people's work, for any reason at all, is "stealing". It is perfectly legal to use other people's work, for all sort of things. Its not stealing, in many situations. This hard rule that you have made up, is clearly not the situation, and using your hard rule, where you just call all of it "stealing" would similarly apply to all sorts of other, completely allowed behavior that nobody thinks is "stealing". > but humans also pay to learn Nobody is going to successfully be able to sue you, because you downloaded their publicly accessible work, and learn from it, actually. If you release your creative works, for people to consume, and people consume it, then they are similarly allowed to learn from it.
  - gumballindie 4y ago
    > It is perfectly legal to use other people's work, for all sort of things. Its not stealing, in many situations. For the most part it's covered by contracts, terms, agreements, laws, and so on. Except where it doesn't really matter. Ai is software. Data models are software. It's output is a product.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > For the most part it's covered by contracts, terms, agreements, laws, and so on. Actually, its mostly covered by the "laws" part, and the laws allow people to use other people work, all of the time, even if the person doesn't want you to use and, and there was no agreement to allow it. That is what I am saying. I am saying that it is legal, in all sorts of situations, to use other people's work even if they object/don't want you to.
      - gumballindie 4y ago
        Of course people can use other people's work, within terms and conditions. The people that build data models are required to follow laws. They are more than welcome to use content within their constraints.

gumballindie 4y ago

These arguments are a bit boring. Machine learning for a chat bot is not a person "learning". It's software. Also I hate to break it to you but humans also pay to learn. It's why books, universities and other learning content costs money one way or another.

pixl97 4y ago
>Machine learning for a chat bot is not a person "learning". It's software. I'd like you to learn more about LLMs then, because under the definition you want to make, you are 'software'. Also, we made libraries so people could learn for free without being beholden to their capitalist masters.
- gumballindie 4y ago
  > we made libraries so people could learn for free without being beholden to their capitalist masters. Naturally. If you copy the "free" content from those libraries and resell it you are committing plagiarism. Just because something can mimick humans it doesn't meant they are humans. ML is just that, software. There's too much pareidolia out there in AI. Sad, because it's a great concept gradually getting bastardised.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    And if I learn something from that content and make a work of my own? I swear that people on this thread want to create the world envisioned in 'the right to read'.
stale2002 4y ago
> Machine learning for a chat bot is not a person "learning". It's software. I am not saying that it is exactly the same. Instead, I am saying that if a human can profit from other people's work, by learning from it, then there are clearly exceptions to this idea that using other people's work, for any reason at all, is "stealing". It is perfectly legal to use other people's work, for all sort of things. Its not stealing, in many situations. This hard rule that you have made up, is clearly not the situation, and using your hard rule, where you just call all of it "stealing" would similarly apply to all sorts of other, completely allowed behavior that nobody thinks is "stealing". > but humans also pay to learn Nobody is going to successfully be able to sue you, because you downloaded their publicly accessible work, and learn from it, actually. If you release your creative works, for people to consume, and people consume it, then they are similarly allowed to learn from it.
- gumballindie 4y ago
  > It is perfectly legal to use other people's work, for all sort of things. Its not stealing, in many situations. For the most part it's covered by contracts, terms, agreements, laws, and so on. Except where it doesn't really matter. Ai is software. Data models are software. It's output is a product.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > For the most part it's covered by contracts, terms, agreements, laws, and so on. Actually, its mostly covered by the "laws" part, and the laws allow people to use other people work, all of the time, even if the person doesn't want you to use and, and there was no agreement to allow it. That is what I am saying. I am saying that it is legal, in all sorts of situations, to use other people's work even if they object/don't want you to.
    - gumballindie 4y ago
      Of course people can use other people's work, within terms and conditions. The people that build data models are required to follow laws. They are more than welcome to use content within their constraints.