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.

  • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s absolutely not correct. AI is a field of computer science/scientific computing built on the idea that some capabilities of biological intelligences could be simulated or even reproduced “in silicon”, i.e. by using computers.

    Nowadays is an extremely broad term that covers a lot of computational methodologies. LLM in particular are a evolution of methods born to simulate and act as human neural network. Nowadays they work very differently, but they still provide great insights on how an “artificial” intellicenge can be built. It is only one small corner of what will be a real general artificial intelligence, and a small step in that direction.

    AI as a name is absolutely unrelated with how programs based on the methodologies are built.

    Human intelligences are in charge of all copyright part. AI and copyright are orthogonal, people are those who cannot tell the 2 and keep talking about AI.

    There is AI, and there is copyright, it is time for all of us to properly frame the discussion on “copyright discussion related to <company>'s product”