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.

  • CethinEnglish
    1•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.

    • @kkluszEnglish
      2•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.