• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 months ago

    I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?

    If we’re using your paintings as training data for a Monet copy, then it could be.

    Are we even talking about AI if we’re saying data quality doesn’t matter?

    • Sam Clemente
      link
      fedilink
      -12 months ago

      @zbyte64 data quality, again, was out of the scope of what I was talking about originally

      Which, again, was that legal precedent would suggest that the *how* is largely irrelevant in copyright cases, they’re mostly focused on *why* and the *scale of the operation*

      I’m not getting sued for copyright infringement by the NYT because I used inspect element to delete content to read behind their paywall, OpenAI is

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 months ago

        I was narrowly taking issue with the comparison to how humans learn, I really don’t care about copyrights.

        • Sam Clemente
          link
          fedilink
          02 months ago

          @zbyte64 where am I wrong? The process is effectively the same: you get a set of training data (a textbook) and a set of validation data (a test) and voila, I’m trained

          To learn how to draw an image of a thing, you look at the thing a lot (training data) and try sketching it out (validation data) until it’s right

          How the data is acquired is irrelevant, I can pirate the textbook or trespass to find a particular flower, that doesn’t mean I’m learning differently than someone who paid for it

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Do we assume everything read in a textbook is correct? When we get feedback on drawing, do we accept the feedback as always correct and applicable? We filter and groom data for the AI so it doesn’t need to learn these things.