3 ms·

Watching people square this mentality with training LLM's on art has been fascinating, and really highlights that people are by and large just in it for themsel

Watching people square this mentality with training LLM's on art has been fascinating, and really highlights that people are by and large just in it for themselves.

yieldcrv 2y ago
GenAI content isn’t afforded copyright protection so that feels like a coincidental good tradeoff I’ve made money from genAI content but i don’t care if someone copied it, it’s a risk I took, they don’t have the network and community I do which is the value.
stavros 2y ago
Why would it be hard to square the mentality of "pirating art to watch is acceptable" with the mentality of "pirating art to train LLMs on is acceptable"?
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  It depends. If your premise for "pirating art to watch is acceptable" is "information should be free to be replicated and reused", then it is also obvious that "pirating art to train LLMs on is acceptable". What premise that can infer "pirating art to watch is acceptable" can also simultaneously infer "pirating art to train LLMs on is not acceptable"? "Information should be free to be replicated and reused as long as you're not making a profit"? This would rule out OpenAI, but Stable Diffusion would be acceptable (it's a true non-profit). What other premises could there be? "One should be able to watch all information, but not replicate it"? But you can't pirate without replicating the information. "You shouldn't repost stuff without consent"? But this rules out piracy. "Information should be free to be replicated and reused as long as it comes from a big corporation"? But piracy from indie games is a thing, too. And how do you define "big"? Also, is training stuff solely on Getty, Shutterstock etc okay, then? What about books3? "But even though publishers own the rights to the book, individual authors wrote it." But the same is true for piracy from big corporations. People worked on it. This is why it's so hard to square it, because I cannot see any rational moral foundation that simultaneously condones piracy (possibly indie games too) while condemning Stable Diffusion and the hobbyist AI ecosystem. The only other explanation is that it is irrational, or as the GP put it, "that people are by and large just in it for themselves". Piracy for me but not for thee.
drpossum 2y ago
No one you're complaining about would care if people were training LLMs on pirated material for their own private use.
- slyall 2y ago
  What do you mean "their own private use"? OpenAI isn't letting me download the material they train on. If you mean because OpenAI is selling access to the LLMs then an artist is doing the same selling art which was painted using skills they gained from consuming pirated material Of course some Copyright Fans want to give artists cuts of AI revenue if the material was used for training. Laws that will absolutely never be used on human artists of course...
Newlaptop 2y ago
Copyright has always allowed for educational usage. Writers read other author's books. Artists study other painters and sculptors. Actors and directors watch other movies. Musicians learn to play other artists songs before they ever start composing their own. The big media copyright cartel has tried to steal that right from the public good by pretending that they're entitled to even more payments for training usage, but thankfully it's clear that no regular people agree with them.

Watching people square this mentality with training LLM's on art has been fascinating, and really highlights that people are by and large just in it for themselves.

yieldcrv 2y ago

GenAI content isn’t afforded copyright protection so that feels like a coincidental good tradeoff I’ve made money from genAI content but i don’t care if someone copied it, it’s a risk I took, they don’t have the network and community I do which is the value.

stavros 2y ago

Why would it be hard to square the mentality of "pirating art to watch is acceptable" with the mentality of "pirating art to train LLMs on is acceptable"?

CaptainFever 2y ago
It depends. If your premise for "pirating art to watch is acceptable" is "information should be free to be replicated and reused", then it is also obvious that "pirating art to train LLMs on is acceptable". What premise that can infer "pirating art to watch is acceptable" can also simultaneously infer "pirating art to train LLMs on is not acceptable"? "Information should be free to be replicated and reused as long as you're not making a profit"? This would rule out OpenAI, but Stable Diffusion would be acceptable (it's a true non-profit). What other premises could there be? "One should be able to watch all information, but not replicate it"? But you can't pirate without replicating the information. "You shouldn't repost stuff without consent"? But this rules out piracy. "Information should be free to be replicated and reused as long as it comes from a big corporation"? But piracy from indie games is a thing, too. And how do you define "big"? Also, is training stuff solely on Getty, Shutterstock etc okay, then? What about books3? "But even though publishers own the rights to the book, individual authors wrote it." But the same is true for piracy from big corporations. People worked on it. This is why it's so hard to square it, because I cannot see any rational moral foundation that simultaneously condones piracy (possibly indie games too) while condemning Stable Diffusion and the hobbyist AI ecosystem. The only other explanation is that it is irrational, or as the GP put it, "that people are by and large just in it for themselves". Piracy for me but not for thee.

drpossum 2y ago

No one you're complaining about would care if people were training LLMs on pirated material for their own private use.

slyall 2y ago
What do you mean "their own private use"? OpenAI isn't letting me download the material they train on. If you mean because OpenAI is selling access to the LLMs then an artist is doing the same selling art which was painted using skills they gained from consuming pirated material Of course some Copyright Fans want to give artists cuts of AI revenue if the material was used for training. Laws that will absolutely never be used on human artists of course...

Newlaptop 2y ago

Copyright has always allowed for educational usage. Writers read other author's books. Artists study other painters and sculptors. Actors and directors watch other movies. Musicians learn to play other artists songs before they ever start composing their own. The big media copyright cartel has tried to steal that right from the public good by pretending that they're entitled to even more payments for training usage, but thankfully it's clear that no regular people agree with them.