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.

  • Iceblade@lemmy.worldEnglish
    321·
    1 year ago

    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.).

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
      121·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Iceblade@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        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.

      • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        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.

    • kklusz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      1 year ago

      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.zipEnglish
        22·
        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.