4 ms·

> being part of training data was fair use It's not though, and never has been. Why should it be? Why should people contribute to making their own jobs obsole

• scarface74 4y ago
  > Why should people contribute to making their own jobs obsolete and not even be compensated for it? Haven’t technologist been saying for years about blue collar workers whose jobs have been made obsolete by technology that they should learn a new skill? Now that it’s hitting white collar workers, we are singing a different tune. And most of the time especially here on HN most people want an expansive definition of fair use as long as it is directed toward using work created by the big media companies.
  • Riverheart 4y ago
    Well there are only two types of collars, blue and white. Is there another shore to swim towards? Pretty typical human behavior.
• flangola7 4y ago
  All of OpenAI's data collection is done under fair use
• joshjob42 4y ago
  It’s fair use because training sets are useless except for creating a new thing which transforms the inputs into something new. It’s not merely selling photos that already exist or something. Stable Diffusion has only about enough bits in the weights to represent a single pixel out of each image in the training set.
  • Riverheart 4y ago
    “training sets are useless except for creating a new thing” So by useless you mean absolutely essential? Hard to argue the fair use thing but it was designed around humans not AI so just because it is fair use now does not mean it should or will be in the future.
    • heyoni 4y ago
      What is this? I keep seeing it.
      • Riverheart 4y ago
        What is what? If you mean distinguishing between AI and humans, it’s exactly what it sounds like. Fair use is a legal construct not a universal truth and subject to change like anything else. Just like how the US Founders writing the 2nd amendment with muskets in mind didn’t foresee full auto assault rifles in the hands of citizens. In hindsight, overly permissive law, all things not equal, hello gun control.
        • heyoni 4y ago
          I think my HN client was bugging out because all your comments were displaying as ** Ignore me
        • salawat 4y ago
          Automatic weapons were in fact in the public consciousness at the time of the founding, and the Gatling Gun existed and was used in the Civil War with no restrictions on who may own one. I dare say, this thought that people so well read they could architect a country were not aware of the State of the Art in weaponry is rather naive.
          • Riverheart 4y ago
            If it is naive to disbelieve the founders foresaw a future in which automatic weapons and bullets would be so lightweight, cheap and accessible to civilians that anyone could buy them and go on a rampage by themselves that the State could not suppress without dozens of police and SWAT teams then I am naive. Gatling Guns came well after the Founding, were large, heavy, hand cranked, cost between $1000 to $1500 to purchase and required a four man crew to operate. I don’t feel they can be compared to modern weapons. The Founders were intelligent and capable men but they were not infallible. They knew that too, that’s why Amendments exist.