4 ms·

Don't put your work out in public if you want it to be excluded from training. Because the moment another person sees/hears it, they just trained their brain on

Don't put your work out in public if you want it to be excluded from training. Because the moment another person sees/hears it, they just trained their brain on it. Not to mention, the only reason you've been able to create the _work_ is because you've trained your brain for years on others work. These luddites need to lose really hard for society to progress.

goertzen 2y ago
Are you a real person ? Obviously there is more to it than that. Just because you’ve seen Mickey Mouse and can draw you should get to sell anything you can make with his likeness ? Or record any song you’ve heard ? Obviously there is some gray area in the training conversation but let’s not pretend that these content owner arguments are baseless just to push progress at all costs ahead. His point stands.
- rvnx 2y ago
  I get his point, intellectual "property" boundaries could be limited to public or common benefit (I guess to extend the current interpretation of "fair use"). If we strictly interpret intellectual property, we couldn't have platforms such as Google Search (and some people actually think like this, like News or Images websites). For now, I guess the main priority could be to fight patents, and software patents in particular. This system is completely obsolete and prevent innovation. Imagine if Google patented the LLMs and decided to do nothing with them, or if OpenAI said "ok nobody can create LLMs based on Transformers except us". Even more when it goes around medicine. Today they patent the blood oxygen sensor, tomorrow it will be the glucose sensor in the Apple Watch.
- CrimsonRain 2y ago
  If I draw mickey image (using artificial intelligence or my intelligence; doesn't matter) and sell it, I'm violating copyright laws. If I draw shitty mouse and sell it, I can. Again, doesn't matter if I use ai or not.
trinsic2 2y ago
This sounds like the exact same argument that copyright trolls were against. Where's RIAA and the MPAA? I guess we are talking out of both sides of our mouth now.

goertzen 2y ago

Are you a real person ? Obviously there is more to it than that. Just because you’ve seen Mickey Mouse and can draw you should get to sell anything you can make with his likeness ? Or record any song you’ve heard ? Obviously there is some gray area in the training conversation but let’s not pretend that these content owner arguments are baseless just to push progress at all costs ahead. His point stands.

rvnx 2y ago
I get his point, intellectual "property" boundaries could be limited to public or common benefit (I guess to extend the current interpretation of "fair use"). If we strictly interpret intellectual property, we couldn't have platforms such as Google Search (and some people actually think like this, like News or Images websites). For now, I guess the main priority could be to fight patents, and software patents in particular. This system is completely obsolete and prevent innovation. Imagine if Google patented the LLMs and decided to do nothing with them, or if OpenAI said "ok nobody can create LLMs based on Transformers except us". Even more when it goes around medicine. Today they patent the blood oxygen sensor, tomorrow it will be the glucose sensor in the Apple Watch.
CrimsonRain 2y ago
If I draw mickey image (using artificial intelligence or my intelligence; doesn't matter) and sell it, I'm violating copyright laws. If I draw shitty mouse and sell it, I can. Again, doesn't matter if I use ai or not.

trinsic2 2y ago

This sounds like the exact same argument that copyright trolls were against. Where's RIAA and the MPAA? I guess we are talking out of both sides of our mouth now.