> What makes you think you are entitled to tell people what they can and cant do with data they purchased
Hundreds of years of copyright law. I bought a copy of Windows, but I’m not allowed to modify that data with a cracker and sell a bootleg DVD of it.
I should edit to clarify that I’m not a big fan of Lars Ulrich or Disney, but I don’t think we’re going to get a win here for the recreational IP pirates. What’s more likely is that we’ll end up with some Frankenstein law that favors both Mikey Mouse and OpenAI, and you and I will neither get free movies nor the ability to earn a living off of our creative labor.
I mean, the comparable situation would be, being allowed to sell something you created on Windows.
But in abstract you should absolutely be able to modify and sell windows.
To continue your analogy, I had to pay for Windows before I was allowed to create something with it, or acquire a license for under terms they set forth. If AI companies stopped at the public domain, then my argument wouldn't really hold up, but they didn't do that. They acquired everyone's copyrighted works without regard for the license and now they're, in the most charitable interpretation, using them to create derivative works.
And before you give me an analogy about how someone could listen to Pink Floyd and then produce works inspired by their influence yada yada: Someone is a human being with human rights, and if we're going to start pretending that training an LLM is in any way analogous to human consumption and creativity, and not an industrial process that encodes input data into a digital artifact, then let's start by saying LLMs have human rights and cannot be owned by a company that charges for access to them.
>To continue your analogy, I had to pay for Windows before I was allowed to create something with it, or acquire a license for under terms they set forth.
Yep and so far it looks like the issue with the meta case is they didnt pay for the book. Not that they used it in training data.
>in the most charitable interpretation, using them to create derivative works.
Yeah in the same way I use a hammer to create a derivative table.
>Someone is a human being with human rights, and if we're going to start pretending that training an LLM is in any way analogous to human consumption and creativity.
I dont care about that. Its simply a tool being built using existing tools. Like using a jigsaw to make a step ladder.
> Yep and so far it looks like the issue with the meta case is they didnt pay for the book. Not that they used it in training data.
Let's not sane-wash what they did here, they didn't just 'forgot to pay for the books', they deliberately and illegally downloaded and used material that wasn't theirs to use.
If you or I did that, we would be jailed or sued into destitution. In a fair world we either should change copyright laws (allowing for anyone to freely pirate all media), or Zuckerberg needs to go to jail.
>Let's not sane-wash what they did here, they didn't just 'forgot to pay for the books', they deliberately and illegally downloaded and used material that wasn't theirs to use.
Yes. Forgot is your word.
But lets face it, there wouldn't be a case to answer for if they had paid retail for each book, torn them up and scanned them and trained on that data.
>Zuckerberg needs to go to jail.
I am comfortable with that but would prefer updating copyright.