• HonorIsDead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m conflicted on a lot of this. At the end of the day it seems like these LLMs are simulating human behavior to an extent - exposure to content and generating similar content from that. Could Sarah Silverman be sued by comedians who influenced her comedy style and routines? generally no. I do understand the risk with letting these ‘AI’ run rampant to displace a huge portion of the creative space which is bad but where should the line be drawn? Is it only the fact they were trained material they dont own people are challenging? What recourse will they have when a LLM is trained on wholly owned IP?

    • Granite@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      She’s suing for copyright infringement, basically, not the LLM emulating her style.

      The LLMs read books from her and many, many others that they didn’t buy, because unauthorized copies had been uploaded to the web (happens to every popular book).

      Honestly, I don’t know if she has a case. Going after the people who illegally uploaded her book would be the proper route, but that’s always nearly impossible.

      Long and short, LLMs benefited from illegal copies.

      • Bill Stickers@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see a lot of people claim the training model included copyrighted works particularly books because it can provide a summary of it. But it can provide a summary of visual media too, and no one is claiming it’s sitting there watching films.

        If the argument is it has quite a detailed knowledge of the book, that’s not convincing either. All it needs is a summary and it can make up the blanks, and get it close enough we can’t tell the difference. Nothing is original.

  • Dusty@l.dusty-radio.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why is crap from 2 weeks ago being posted like it’s new news yet again

    Is this one of those bot accounts that aren’t marked properly or is OP just after karma (which doesn’t exist on this site).

  • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    none of the LLMs are funny or outrageous so I doubt she was highly cited.

    it would be nice if the end result of all of these cases was that publicly sourced models had to be public services

    ha! as if.

  • chemical_cutthroat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m still waiting on proof for any of these allegations. So far it’s just been people suing for the sake of suing and hoping they strike gold. If anyone can point to any evidence at all (read: not hearsay) then I’ll gladly review it, but as it stands, its nothing.

  • Quokka@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hope she loses.

    No one should “own” words or concepts.

        • sirdorius@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s ideologically cool and all, but in today’s reality megacorps will be getting paid for the labor of others which get nothing in return and will further accelerate the divide of wealth.

          • Quokka@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, nah.

            We need to weaken these copyright and ownership notions one fight at a time.

            You won’t get to tomorrow if you settle for today.

              • Quokka@quokk.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                And it helps the big guy own everything our culture has produced.

                We’re not even entitled to use the culture of our age freely because it’s all held by a handful of companies.

                • LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you hate the “Big Guy” but you also hate independent workers like Sarah for wanting to protect their IP? You’re making no sense here and just contradicting yourself between posts

            • sirdorius@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh so settling for giant corporations using AI to plagiarize other’s work without liability is getting us to a better tomorrow? Interesting

                • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh sure I bet the corporations will get right on giving up their ip so that they’re on the same page as the rest of us.

    • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So why are you ok with openai being paid for taking work from other people that you don’t think should be paid? If she loses, then that’s the situation.

      • Quokka@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So change the system that lets them be paid for, don’t paywall human culture and let that system continue.

        You’re picking the wrong target here.

        • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The system exists. We all have to live with it. Or change it, but this case won’t do that and you’re effectively siding with big tech over authors.

      • jgardner10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just because you can freely say something doesn’t mean I have to forced to listen to it.

        • mrmanager@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that means that the words cannot be used, which means they are not owned by you. If you could use them, you would own them right?

          • Cail@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the words can be used, just not in that specific space. If you’re not allowed to bring a gun to a restaurant it doesn’t mean the restaurant suddenly owns the bullets.

      • Quokka@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a completely unrelated topic.

        You’re talking about censorship, I’m talking about ownership.