3 ms·
Who are authors to decide that their work should be forbidden from being fed into ML models? Everyone does it. And until the laws change, people will continue
by sillysaurusx 3y ago
Who are authors to decide that their work should be forbidden from being fed into ML models?
Everyone does it. And until the laws change, people will continue to.
You could make the same argument about LAION (and people do). The difference is that people have to scrape LAION themselves.
Google itself would be copyright infringement by that standard. They spider massive amounts of copyrighted content, and serve ads while doing so.
My goal was to make it possible for people like you and me to train a ChatGPT competitor.
- KirillPanov 3y ago> Who are authors to decide that their work should be forbidden from being fed into ML models? That's how copyright works. To create a derivative work, you need a license. > They spider massive amounts of copyrighted content ...while obeying `robots.txt`, which is the machine-readable version of "all rights reserved". They also accept DMCA notices.
- sillysaurusx 3y agohttps://spawning.ai https://spawning.ai seems to have the right idea. They propose creating an ai.txt standard. I’m also working with them to make an opt out for books3, for whatever that’s worth. Which given the current climate of “sue or jail anyone who disagrees” might only stoke the flames.
- mellosouls 3y agoThat's how copyright works. To create a derivative work, you need a license. It's no more derivative than the works the authors produce, publicize and sell on their open source software platforms. Are they also going to be charged for every book released that has in some way contributed to their cultural hinterland? We're talking about building a cultural context en-masse - not taking individual books to enjoy for free and plagiarise. That single vs mass use of the books makes a significant ethical difference.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]