• 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    That we already have laws that protect copyright infringement (which seem like they would still apply if it was spit out by an LLM or not), and no more should be made. That training on public data is fine.

    • trollbearpig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Any arguments to defend your position? I’m giving you a very clear example of the awful consecuences of following that path. And the same applies to any creative work. You are just being dismissive without proposing any real solution. Do better man.

      • 31337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The EFF link I posted above provides evidence. Again, here’s a quote from part of it:

        The process of machine learning for generative AI art is like how humans learn—studying other works—it is just done at a massive scale. Huge swaths of data (images, videos, and other copyrighted works) are analyzed and broken into their factual elements where billions of images, for example, could be distilled into billions of bytes, sometimes as small as less than one byte of information per image. In many instances, the process cannot be reversed because too little information is kept to faithfully recreate a copy of the original work.

        As I mentioned before, Copilot at least, helps people avoid copyright infringement by notifying you if your code is similar to public code. The solution I’m proposing is no new laws, and just enforcing the ones we have. Most of the laws being proposed look like attempts at regulatory capture to me.