- cross-posted to:
- piracy@lemmy.ml
- chatgpt@lemdro.id
- cross-posted to:
- piracy@lemmy.ml
- chatgpt@lemdro.id
You must log in or register to comment.
if asked by a user prompts chatGPT to summarize a copyrighted book, it will do so.
So will a human. Let’s stop extending copyright law. Also, how you know it read the book, and not a summary of it, of which there are loads on the internet?
This is why I am pro AI art. It’s no different than a human taking inspiration from other work.
Nobody comes up with anything truly original. It’s all inspired by someone before them.
I don’t know how anyone is pro AI anything other than the pigs making money from it. Only bad can result of it. And will.
The private one’s sure. Not the open source models, such as StableDiffusion which anyone can host on modest hardware themselves though.
‘Reading my book infringes on my copyright.’ say confused writers.
This is what I never understood about the whole training on AI thing.
When a human creates an artwork, they don’t do it out of a vacuum. They’ve had a lifetime of inspiration from artwork they’ve discovered that inspires then to create something wholly new. AI does the same thing
No, a human being gets inspired by a book, learns from it, adapts it and uses their own creativity along with what they learned to create something new. The AI models so far are e.g. language models. They have no creativity, no character, and no inspiration. They don’t even understand the text they are writing. It totally shows in AI generared texts that are longer than a few paragraphs. Usually the text makes no sense at all. The AIs use context clues from their source material to fool readers into thinking that there is more to it but no AI understands what they are producing.
The human equivalent would be someone plagiarizing a story / melody, change a few things and selling it as their own. There are many court decisions based on whether something is too similar to its inspiration or if the personal creativity is dominant. Only for language models we know that there is no creativity. We just don’t recognize the originals anymore because the language models use thousands of sources and don’t tell us which once they used for a specific text.
This is a strawman.
You cannot act as though feeding LLMs data is remotely comparable to reading.
Why not?
Because reading is an inherently human activity.
An LLM consuming data from a training model is not.
It’s built to train like us though
