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.

  • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the cleaner (and most likely) outcome is AI generated work is considered public domain, and since public domain content can already be edited and combined and arranged to create copyrighted content this would largely clear up the path for creators to use AI more prominently in their workflows

    • makingStuffForFun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So I can make derivative works from commercial works, make something from that material, then release the result as public domain? I would think not.

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

      Honestly, I’d personally prefer the latter, but there is the argument made by artists, coders and content creators. Their work is being scraped to train these AI’s, which in turn makes their future work less valuable. Hence, the thought of enforcing a tiny “royalty”/tax on commercial products based off of AI generated content and funneling that money back to human creators of intellectual works.