3 ms·

I agree, but it's derivative work that infringes almost indiscriminately on all publicly available cultural goods and can be very useful while doing so. That's

I agree, but it's derivative work that infringes almost indiscriminately on all publicly available cultural goods and can be very useful while doing so. That's why I think copyleft is somewhat a fitting consequence.

martin-t 2y ago
So you think all work produced with the help of LLMs should by required to be open sourced under a copyleft-like license? That is actually an intriguing idea and at least aligned with the reasons I use AGPL for my code.
- chromanoid 2y ago
  Honestly, I only thought about the models, assuming that work that uses them, will also inevitably be incorporated into them. But maybe it is a good idea to actually include the produced works. It could create a nice incentive for rich corps to pay artists to create something AI free / copyleft free. If we could extract correct attribution and even licensing out of work that was produced with AI, I don't think it would help that much. I would even assume that especially in this case the rich would profit the most. They wouldn't care having to pay thousands of artists for the pixels they provided to their AI generated blockbuster movie. It would effectively exclude the poor from using AI for compliance reasons. Or even worse rich corps monopolize the training data and then they can create content practically for free, while indies cannot use AI because they would have to pay traditional prices or give the rich corps money for indirectly using their training data.
  - martin-t 2y ago
    > pay artists to create something AI free / copyleft free I still don't think that's enough to be fair. If their work is used to produce value ad infinitum, them any one-time payment is obviously less than what they deserve. The payment should be fractional compared to the produced value. And that is very hard to do since you don't know how much money somebody made by using the model. > It would effectively exclude the poor from using AI for compliance reasons. Again, this only an issue if you're thinking in terms of one-time fixed payments.
    - chromanoid 2y ago
      I believe you think in too short time frames. In 70 years this becomes a futile discussion. AI is a way to directly benefit from the explosion of free content that the next decades will bring. The only way to counter this in an ethical way, is to establish some kind of enforced liberation for AI models, otherwise as you say, only the rich will profit from this.
      - martin-t 2y ago
        It's author's life plus 70 years, if you meant that. And TBH I am mostly interested in the author's life part anyway. If it was possible to train AI models on just the public domain, them I am sure ML companies would have because it's less effort than lobbying and risking lawsuits (though I am surprised how well creators have accepted that their work is used by others to profit without any compensation, I expected way more outrage). Virtually all code relevant to training code-completion LLMs is written by people still alive or dead for way less than 70 years. We can try to come up with a better system over the next decades but those people's rights are being violated right now.
        chromanoid 2y ago
        I am curious why you are so critical especially when looking at code. At least for Java there are search engines to look for code that call libraries etc. Models could probably be trained on free code and then be fed with the results of these search engines on demand even through the client who calls the LLM: Client -> LLM -> Client automation API -> Code search on client machine to fill context -> Code generation w/o model that is trained on the code that was found through the code search, but merely used as context Even if they only feed code into it, that is freely given, I think the difference in quality of output would approach the current quality and better over time, especially when using RAG techniques like the above. Companies can also buy code for feeding the model after all. So beside the injustice you directly experience right now over your own code probably being fed into AI models, do you fear/despise anything more than that from LLMs?
        2y ago

martin-t 2y ago

So you think all work produced with the help of LLMs should by required to be open sourced under a copyleft-like license? That is actually an intriguing idea and at least aligned with the reasons I use AGPL for my code.

chromanoid 2y ago
Honestly, I only thought about the models, assuming that work that uses them, will also inevitably be incorporated into them. But maybe it is a good idea to actually include the produced works. It could create a nice incentive for rich corps to pay artists to create something AI free / copyleft free. If we could extract correct attribution and even licensing out of work that was produced with AI, I don't think it would help that much. I would even assume that especially in this case the rich would profit the most. They wouldn't care having to pay thousands of artists for the pixels they provided to their AI generated blockbuster movie. It would effectively exclude the poor from using AI for compliance reasons. Or even worse rich corps monopolize the training data and then they can create content practically for free, while indies cannot use AI because they would have to pay traditional prices or give the rich corps money for indirectly using their training data.
- martin-t 2y ago
  > pay artists to create something AI free / copyleft free I still don't think that's enough to be fair. If their work is used to produce value ad infinitum, them any one-time payment is obviously less than what they deserve. The payment should be fractional compared to the produced value. And that is very hard to do since you don't know how much money somebody made by using the model. > It would effectively exclude the poor from using AI for compliance reasons. Again, this only an issue if you're thinking in terms of one-time fixed payments.
  - chromanoid 2y ago
    I believe you think in too short time frames. In 70 years this becomes a futile discussion. AI is a way to directly benefit from the explosion of free content that the next decades will bring. The only way to counter this in an ethical way, is to establish some kind of enforced liberation for AI models, otherwise as you say, only the rich will profit from this.
    - martin-t 2y ago
      It's author's life plus 70 years, if you meant that. And TBH I am mostly interested in the author's life part anyway. If it was possible to train AI models on just the public domain, them I am sure ML companies would have because it's less effort than lobbying and risking lawsuits (though I am surprised how well creators have accepted that their work is used by others to profit without any compensation, I expected way more outrage). Virtually all code relevant to training code-completion LLMs is written by people still alive or dead for way less than 70 years. We can try to come up with a better system over the next decades but those people's rights are being violated right now.
      - chromanoid 2y ago
        I am curious why you are so critical especially when looking at code. At least for Java there are search engines to look for code that call libraries etc. Models could probably be trained on free code and then be fed with the results of these search engines on demand even through the client who calls the LLM: Client -> LLM -> Client automation API -> Code search on client machine to fill context -> Code generation w/o model that is trained on the code that was found through the code search, but merely used as context Even if they only feed code into it, that is freely given, I think the difference in quality of output would approach the current quality and better over time, especially when using RAG techniques like the above. Companies can also buy code for feeding the model after all. So beside the injustice you directly experience right now over your own code probably being fed into AI models, do you fear/despise anything more than that from LLMs?
        2y ago