LLMs are far more training data-intensive, hardware-intensive, and energy-intensive than a human brain. They’re still very much a brute-force method of getting computers to work with language.
So is suing, but thay managed to sue AI, so why not let it read too?
How are they suing “AI”? They aren’t suing a concept. They are in fact suing a company whose product is an AI product. And it is of course the responsibility of the company who created it if they broke any laws in the process.
Yes, I just don’t particularly like copyright law. While I do think there are forms of it that can be useful, in current shape it might even do more harm than good.
Why not?
Because reading is an inherently human activity.
An LLM consuming data from a training model is not.
LLMs forcing us to take a look at ourselves and see if we’re really that special.
I don’t think we are.
For now, we’re special.
LLMs are far more training data-intensive, hardware-intensive, and energy-intensive than a human brain. They’re still very much a brute-force method of getting computers to work with language.
So is suing, but thay managed to sue AI, so why not let it read too?
What are you trying to say?
How are they suing “AI”? They aren’t suing a concept. They are in fact suing a company whose product is an AI product. And it is of course the responsibility of the company who created it if they broke any laws in the process.
Yes, I just don’t particularly like copyright law. While I do think there are forms of it that can be useful, in current shape it might even do more harm than good.
And one library card could solve this case.
And that’s fine, I don’t like it either. But your comment was nonsense, hence why I asked what you were even trying to say.
Yeah, I tried to say too much in not enough words.
I guess I commented on stuff I don’t really care about.
Because the LLM is also outputting the copyrighted material.
So could any human that got inspired by something…