Technology

59169 readers

2254 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

351

Hot take: LLM technology is being purposefully framed as AI to avoid accountability (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

104 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

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (2 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.).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the cleaner (and most likely) outcome is AI generated work is considered public domain, and since public domain content can already be edited and combined and arranged to create copyrighted content this would largely clear up the path for creators to use AI more prominently in their workflows

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly, I'd personally prefer the latter, but there is the argument made by artists, coders and content creators. Their work is being scraped to train these AI's, which in turn makes their future work less valuable. Hence, the thought of enforcing a tiny "royalty"/tax on commercial products based off of AI generated content and funneling that money back to human creators of intellectual works.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So I can make derivative works from commercial works, make something from that material, then release the result as public domain? I would think not.

[–] [email protected] 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Public domain is not infectious like GPL is. That being said, it seems like the parent comment has already mentioned this case, now that I’ve read them again:

public domain content can already be edited and combined and arranged to create copyrighted content

That’s fine by me. The important thing is that humans can still use AI as a legally recognized productivity tool, including using it as a way to use ideas and styles generated by other humans.