2 ms·

Art is highly derivative for the most part, and artists are constantly learning from each other. The jury's out whether this applies to machines. Training an LL

Art is highly derivative for the most part, and artists are constantly learning from each other. The jury's out whether this applies to machines. Training an LLM on data is not the same as copying it. As such, the case right now against Meta is wholly focused on the acquisition part and not the training itself.

shakna 1y ago
Meta's AI will quote some of my books in whole. So, yeah. That's copying.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  We must separate the act of training from the act of distribution (which could include filtering). Training and personal use seems well within the scope of fair use. I do however understand why you would be upset if Meta or OpenAI hosts/distributes a model that could fully reproduce your books (assuming that is really the case) and make money providing that information. That said, and I'm not trying to move goalposts here, I just don't personally find Meta in particular to be morally at fault, as I already have particular views on the freedom for myself and others to share information with each other that may be incompatible with your views (and to be clear, as an artist and open source engineer I do have an informed personal opinion on this matter, I have deeply considered and continue to reconsider the balance of freedoms required for artists to make a living off their craft without infringing upon what I see as inalienable personal freedoms). Meta released their models publicly and freely after investing a lot of time and money into them, and I see it as a net good for humanity to have access to these incredible neural networks that were relegated to science fiction just a few years ago. I also think LLMs are going to force us to rethink our entire approach to copyright. Whether that means abandoning our current notions of copyright entirely, or creating residuals for hosted commercial LLMs, or something else, I don't know.

shakna 1y ago

Meta's AI will quote some of my books in whole. So, yeah. That's copying.

soulofmischief 1y ago
We must separate the act of training from the act of distribution (which could include filtering). Training and personal use seems well within the scope of fair use. I do however understand why you would be upset if Meta or OpenAI hosts/distributes a model that could fully reproduce your books (assuming that is really the case) and make money providing that information. That said, and I'm not trying to move goalposts here, I just don't personally find Meta in particular to be morally at fault, as I already have particular views on the freedom for myself and others to share information with each other that may be incompatible with your views (and to be clear, as an artist and open source engineer I do have an informed personal opinion on this matter, I have deeply considered and continue to reconsider the balance of freedoms required for artists to make a living off their craft without infringing upon what I see as inalienable personal freedoms). Meta released their models publicly and freely after investing a lot of time and money into them, and I see it as a net good for humanity to have access to these incredible neural networks that were relegated to science fiction just a few years ago. I also think LLMs are going to force us to rethink our entire approach to copyright. Whether that means abandoning our current notions of copyright entirely, or creating residuals for hosted commercial LLMs, or something else, I don't know.