Comment by amelius
9 months ago
I think it is more reasonable for content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data. After all, content is what make AI possible, and content owners could easily start their own LLM if they wanted to since a lot of it is open source now.
You're taking an "everything not permitted is forbidden" approach, which contradicts the common law principle of residual freedom.
This would automatically outlaw any new use of information (eg music sampling) by default.
If all novel uses were banned from the outset, cultural progress would suffer immeasurably.
I don't think cultural progress will suffer from copyright holders preventing AI from using their content.
What I think will suffer more is the bank accounts of AI corporations.
So to be clear, you're arguing this one specific use (machine learning) should be knocked on the head? And not all novel uses?
Because "content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data" is quite broad.
2 replies →
they are not content "owners" though. they have a a copyright that regulates who can copy and distribute that data. they don't have a say how that content is used when acquired legally as long as you activity doesn't constitute a distribution.
That is not reasonable, should a child heed the restrictions placed on the 1st grade math book later in life, when they become PhD?
LLMs aren't people
LLMs aren't the ones making the decision to use the copyrighted information as training data, and it's that decision that is at issue here.
No, but people are the one's training the models.
>I think it is more reasonable for content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data.
They lose that right as soon as they sell it to other people.
No, you can't sell a book to someone and then sue anyone who reads the book, upside down.
That would be ridiculous. If you don't want someone reading your book upside down, or training on it, then don't sell books.
You assume that "training" and human learning are similar things.
This is a bit like saying that taking a holiday picture of someone, and putting a surveillance camera on the street are the same thing.
I think many books actually prohibit the storage into an information retrieval system and AI can be considered a form of that.
> You assume that "training" and human learning are similar things.
No I don't. Because a human is choosing to enact the training regardless.
Just like if a human held a book up to a rock. It would be ridiculous that an author could ban a human from "training" a rock from a book. Its their book, and they can show it to a rock if they want!
2 replies →