5 ms·
Does everyone have "legal" access to YouTube. In theory that should matter to something like Open(Closed)Ai. But who knows.
by bangaladore 2y ago
Does everyone have "legal" access to YouTube.
In theory that should matter to something like Open(Closed)Ai. But who knows.
- dheera 2y agoI mean, I have trained myself on Youtube. Why can't a silicon being train itself on Youtube as well?
- lexandstuff 2y agoThe difference is that you didn't need to scrape millions of videos from YouTube with residential proxy network scrapers to train yourself.
- dheera 2y agoOnly because I'm significantly more intelligent than ChatGPT, so I can achieve its level of competency on a lot of things with a thousand videos instead of a million videos. If it just reduces to an issue of data efficiency, AI research will eventually get there though.
- jillyboel 2y agoHumans have rights, machines don't.
- dmonitor 2y agoBecause silicon is a robot. A camcorder can't catch a flick with me in the theater even if I dress it up like a muppet.
- dheera 2y agoWhat if I'm part-carbon, part-silicon? Like, a blind person with vision restored by silicon eyes? Do I not have rights to run whatever firmware I want on those eyes, because it's part of my body? Okay, so what if that firmware could hypothetically save and train AI models?
- dmonitor 2y agopresumably, it should be illegal to record a movie with with an inbuilt camera. capturing the data in such a way that an identical copy can be automatically be reproduced brakes the social contract around the way those works are shared. the majority of media is produced by large companies that are ultimately not harmed by such activities, but individual artisans that create things shouldn't be subjected to this. we can take this a step further: if your augmented eyes and ears can record people in a conversation, should you be allowed to produce lifelike replicas of people's appearance and voice? a person can definitely imagine someone saying/doing anything. a talented person with enough effort could even make a 3D model and do a voice impression on their own. it should be obvious that having a conversation with a stranger doesn't give them permission to clone your every detail, and shouldn't that also be true for your creations?
- the_sleaze_ 2y agoNot with that attitude. A corporation "is a person" with all the rights that come along with that - free speech etc.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y agoWhen a company trains an AI model on something, and then that company sells access to the ai model, the company, not the ai model, is the being violating copyright. If Jimmy makes an android in his garage and gives it free will, then it trains itself on youtube, i doubt anyone would have an issue.
- golol 2y agoIf OpenAI training on youtube videos violates copyright then so does Google training on them.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y agoIn what possible way is that true? Not that I like it, but google has its creators sign away the rights to their material for uses like this. Nobody signs a contract with openai when they make their youtube videos.
- dheera 2y agoWhen you sign away full rights to one company, that one company can give rights to another company (for money or not). They could also just acquire that other company. From the creator's standpoint, signing away rights to one company is as good as gone.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y agoDid openai make a deal with google to train on youtube?