dwazou@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 day agoPaul McCartney and Dua Lipa urge UK Prime Minister to rethink his AI copyright plans. A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission. www.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square257fedilinkarrow-up1863arrow-down119
arrow-up1844arrow-down1external-linkPaul McCartney and Dua Lipa urge UK Prime Minister to rethink his AI copyright plans. A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission. www.theguardian.comdwazou@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 day agomessage-square257fedilink
minus-squarevrighter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down3·22 hours agoif i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that’s illegal. same thing.
minus-squareFiskFisk33@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·20 hours agoOn the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital. If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
minus-squarevrighter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down3·19 hours agowell yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
minus-squareFiskFisk33@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-216 hours agoYup. I don’t think training should be considered breaking copyright. Regurgitating though should. There are examples of use cases besides the right now obvious one of LLMs “creating” “original” content. One that comes to my mind is indexing books. Allowing for people to search for books based on a description.
minus-squareFreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.aulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down3·17 hours agoThat’s not what AI is doing though. A better analogy using your book example would be learning a book by heart, then going and writing a new book in that same style. Is that illegal? No.
minus-squarevrighter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·17 hours agobut that’s not what they’re doing when they’re spitting out open source code verbatim, with no attribution or license
minus-squareFreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.aulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down3·16 hours agoThey don’t do that.
minus-squarevrighter@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·11 hours agoexcept that they regularly do. It isn’t even news at this point
minus-squareFreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.aulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 hours agocan you please show me some examples? Should be easy to find them based on your comment.
if i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that’s illegal. same thing.
On the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital.
If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
well yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
Yup. I don’t think training should be considered breaking copyright. Regurgitating though should.
There are examples of use cases besides the right now obvious one of LLMs “creating” “original” content.
One that comes to my mind is indexing books. Allowing for people to search for books based on a description.
That’s not what AI is doing though. A better analogy using your book example would be learning a book by heart, then going and writing a new book in that same style.
Is that illegal? No.
but that’s not what they’re doing when they’re spitting out open source code verbatim, with no attribution or license
They don’t do that.
except that they regularly do. It isn’t even news at this point
can you please show me some examples? Should be easy to find them based on your comment.