this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
429 points (93.7% liked)

Technology

59288 readers
4409 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Authors using a new tool to search a list of 183,000 books used to train AI are furious to find their works on the list.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] kibiz0r@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd say they should have to follow the most-restrictive license of all of their training data, and that existing CC/FOSS licenses don't count because they were designed for use in a pre-LLM world.

It seems like a pretty reasonable request. But people like free stuff, and when they think about who will get screwed by this they like to imagine that they're sticking it to the biggest publishers of mass media.

But IRL, those publishers are giddy with the idea that instead of scouting artists and bullying them into signing over their IP, they can just summon IP on demand.

The people who will suffer are the independents who refused to sign over their IP. They never got their payday, and now they never will either.

[โ€“] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I think we just need to ban the ability to copyright any AI output. Unless you can prove you created, and or paid for the rights for every piece of training data, I don't see how it's fair. Even then, there are still arguments against letting AI create IP.