5 ms·

> believes that AI training data is built on the theft of people's labor I mean, this is an ideological point. It's not based in reason, won't be changed by re

by ronsor 10mo ago

> believes that AI training data is built on the theft of people's labor I mean, this is an ideological point. It's not based in reason, won't be changed by reason, and is really only a signal to end the engagement with the other party. There's no way to address the point other than agreeing with them, which doesn't make for much of a debate. > an 1800s plantation owner saying "can you imagine trying to explain to someone 100 years from now we tried to stop slavery because of civil rights" I understand this is just an analogy, but for others: people who genuinely compare AI training data to slavery will have their opinions discarded immediately.

mmooss 10mo ago
[flagged]
- refulgentis 10mo ago
  [flagged]
- tombert 10mo ago
  > It's very much based on reason and law. I have no interest in the rest of this argument, but I think I take a bit of issue on this particular point. I don't think the law is fully settled on this in any jurisdiction, but certainly not in the United States. "Reason" is a more nebulous term; I don't think that training data is inherently "theft", any more than inspiration would be even before generative AI. There's probably not an animator alive that wasn't at least partially inspired by the works of Disney, but I don't think that implies that somehow all animations are "stolen" from Disney just because of that fact. Obviously where you draw the line on this is obviously subjective, and I've gone back and forth, but I find it really annoying that everyone is acting like this is so clear cut. Evil corporations like Disney have been trying to use this logic for decades to try and abuse copyright and outlaw being inspired by anything.
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    It can be based on reason and law without being clear cut - that situation applies to most of reason and law. > I don't think that training data is inherently "theft", any more than inspiration would be even before generative AI. There's probably not an animator alive that wasn't at least partially inspired by the works of Disney ... Sure, but you can reason about it, such as by using analogies.
zwnow 10mo ago
> I mean, this is an ideological point. It's not based in reason You cant be serious
beepbooptheory 10mo ago
What makes something more or less ideological for you in this context? Is "reason" always opposed to ideology for you? What is the ideology at play here for the critics?
zaptheimpaler 10mo ago
We have clear evidence that millions of copyrighted books have been used as training data because LLMs can reproduce sections from them verbatim (and emails from employees literally admitting to scraping the data). We have evidence of LLMs reproducing code from github that was never ever released with a license that would permit their use. We know this is illegal. What about any of this is ideological and unreasonable? It's a CRYSTAL CLEAR violation of the law and everyone just shrugs it off because technology or some shit.
- Alex2037 10mo ago
  >We know this is illegal >It's a CRYSTAL CLEAR violation of the law in the court of reddit's public opinion, perhaps. there is, as far as I can tell, no definite ruling about whether training is a copyright violation. and even if there was, US law is not global law. China, notably, doesn't give a flying fuck. kill American AI companies and you will hand the market over to China. that is why "everyone just shrugs it off".
  - goatlover 10mo ago
    The "China will win the AI race" if we in the West (America) don't is an excuse created by those who started the race in Silicon Valley. It's like America saying it had to win the nuclear arms race, when physicists like Oppenheimer back in the late 1940s were wanting to prevent it once they understood the consequences.
    - Alex2037 10mo ago
      okay, and? what do you picture happening if Western AI companies cease to operate tomorrow and fire all their researchers and engineers?
      - Apocryphon 10mo ago
        Less slop
  - zaptheimpaler 10mo ago

by ronsor 10mo ago

mmooss 10mo ago

[flagged]

refulgentis 10mo ago
[flagged]
tombert 10mo ago
> It's very much based on reason and law. I have no interest in the rest of this argument, but I think I take a bit of issue on this particular point. I don't think the law is fully settled on this in any jurisdiction, but certainly not in the United States. "Reason" is a more nebulous term; I don't think that training data is inherently "theft", any more than inspiration would be even before generative AI. There's probably not an animator alive that wasn't at least partially inspired by the works of Disney, but I don't think that implies that somehow all animations are "stolen" from Disney just because of that fact. Obviously where you draw the line on this is obviously subjective, and I've gone back and forth, but I find it really annoying that everyone is acting like this is so clear cut. Evil corporations like Disney have been trying to use this logic for decades to try and abuse copyright and outlaw being inspired by anything.
- mmooss 10mo ago
  It can be based on reason and law without being clear cut - that situation applies to most of reason and law. > I don't think that training data is inherently "theft", any more than inspiration would be even before generative AI. There's probably not an animator alive that wasn't at least partially inspired by the works of Disney ... Sure, but you can reason about it, such as by using analogies.

zwnow 10mo ago

> I mean, this is an ideological point. It's not based in reason You cant be serious

beepbooptheory 10mo ago

What makes something more or less ideological for you in this context? Is "reason" always opposed to ideology for you? What is the ideology at play here for the critics?

zaptheimpaler 10mo ago

We have clear evidence that millions of copyrighted books have been used as training data because LLMs can reproduce sections from them verbatim (and emails from employees literally admitting to scraping the data). We have evidence of LLMs reproducing code from github that was never ever released with a license that would permit their use. We know this is illegal. What about any of this is ideological and unreasonable? It's a CRYSTAL CLEAR violation of the law and everyone just shrugs it off because technology or some shit.

Alex2037 10mo ago
>We know this is illegal >It's a CRYSTAL CLEAR violation of the law in the court of reddit's public opinion, perhaps. there is, as far as I can tell, no definite ruling about whether training is a copyright violation. and even if there was, US law is not global law. China, notably, doesn't give a flying fuck. kill American AI companies and you will hand the market over to China. that is why "everyone just shrugs it off".
- goatlover 10mo ago
  The "China will win the AI race" if we in the West (America) don't is an excuse created by those who started the race in Silicon Valley. It's like America saying it had to win the nuclear arms race, when physicists like Oppenheimer back in the late 1940s were wanting to prevent it once they understood the consequences.
  - Alex2037 10mo ago
    okay, and? what do you picture happening if Western AI companies cease to operate tomorrow and fire all their researchers and engineers?
    - Apocryphon 10mo ago
      Less slop
- zaptheimpaler 10mo ago