5 ms·

>they should be paying out if they are training on data owned by someone Virtually everything you "know" is because of current and past humans. Have you been p

>they should be paying out if they are training on data owned by someone Virtually everything you "know" is because of current and past humans. Have you been paying everyone for all of that? If you want to be a great author and you read books by great writers.. then become a successful writer, are you paying all those authors for training you? I realize there is a difference with being able to absorb bulk data and all that- however, at the core the argument is still the same.

whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
uh yes? Did you pay for textbooks in school? Do you regularly copy protected software and claim it as your own creation? I’ve seen this argument every time someone states that these for profit ai companies should not have complete access to a all of human knowledge and I just don’t see how we’re living in the same world.
wpietri 3y ago
It is not the same. One way to tell is that we think protecting human creators is so important that the US Constitution says Congress has the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". So yes, we absolutely try to pay all those authors. And we also have a variety of cultural mechanisms to reward them in other ways, from honorary doctorates to literary prizes to genius grants to homages. Not to mention a widespread hatred of plagiarism that goes well beyond what copyright covers. None of that is respected by the current crop of text generators. They chose to release these things knowing of these lacks. And that lack of respect is being richly returned, as it should be.
data-ottawa 3y ago
But you do pay for all of that in todays society. Teachers are paid, tuition to schools is paid, feedback from tutors is paid, textbooks are paid for, copies of books are paid for, movies and TV are paid for. The experience you learn on the job is paid for via yours or your coworker’s salary. I get the argument that it’s not copying it’s learning, but it’s also very different than a human learning by observation. And if learning weights is okay, is it okay to train an AI with the structure designed to reproduce Shrek, then sell the AI? I think ShrekAI would be illegal in most countries. It’s a blurry question that we need to think about.
- guntars 3y ago
  The training is not the issue. It’s the reproduction. I expect long term the models will still be trained on copyrighted material, but it will refuse to recite any of it.

whatwhaaaaat 3y ago

uh yes? Did you pay for textbooks in school? Do you regularly copy protected software and claim it as your own creation? I’ve seen this argument every time someone states that these for profit ai companies should not have complete access to a all of human knowledge and I just don’t see how we’re living in the same world.

wpietri 3y ago

It is not the same. One way to tell is that we think protecting human creators is so important that the US Constitution says Congress has the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". So yes, we absolutely try to pay all those authors. And we also have a variety of cultural mechanisms to reward them in other ways, from honorary doctorates to literary prizes to genius grants to homages. Not to mention a widespread hatred of plagiarism that goes well beyond what copyright covers. None of that is respected by the current crop of text generators. They chose to release these things knowing of these lacks. And that lack of respect is being richly returned, as it should be.

data-ottawa 3y ago

But you do pay for all of that in todays society. Teachers are paid, tuition to schools is paid, feedback from tutors is paid, textbooks are paid for, copies of books are paid for, movies and TV are paid for. The experience you learn on the job is paid for via yours or your coworker’s salary. I get the argument that it’s not copying it’s learning, but it’s also very different than a human learning by observation. And if learning weights is okay, is it okay to train an AI with the structure designed to reproduce Shrek, then sell the AI? I think ShrekAI would be illegal in most countries. It’s a blurry question that we need to think about.

guntars 3y ago
The training is not the issue. It’s the reproduction. I expect long term the models will still be trained on copyrighted material, but it will refuse to recite any of it.