this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59300 readers
4818 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
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
3
Hot take: LLM technology is being purposefully framed as AI to avoid accountability (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Which of the following sounds more reasonable?

  • I shouldn't have to pay for the content that I use to tune my LLM model and algorithm.

  • We shouldn't have to pay for the content we use to train and teach an AI.

By calling it AI, the corporations are able to advocate for a position that's blatantly pro corporate and anti writer/artist, and trick people into supporting it under the guise of a technological development.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IMO content created by either AI or LLMs should have a special license and be considered AI public domain (unless they can prove that they own all content the AI was trained on). Commercial content made based on content marked with this license would be subject to a flat % tax that should be applied to the product price which would be earmarked for a fund distributing to human creators (coders, writers, musicians etc.).

[–] kklusz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about LLM generated content that was then edited by a human? Surely authors shouldn't lose copyright over an entire book just because they enlisted the help of LLMs for the first draft.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago

If you take open source code using GNU GPL and modify it, it retains the GNU GPL license. It's like saying it's fine to take a book and just change some words and it's totally not plagerism.