AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content::The companies building generative AI tools like ChatGPT say updated copyright laws could interfere with their ability to train capable AI models. Here are comments from OpenAI, StabilityAI, Meta, Google, Microsoft and more.

  • ryannathans@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Agree, it’s not much different from a human learning from all these sources and then applying said knowledge

    • realharo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Scale matters. For example

      • A bunch of random shops having security cameras, where their employees can review footage

      • Every business in a country having a camera connected to a central surveillance network with facial recognition and search capabilities

      Those two things are not the same, even though you could say they’re “not much different” - it’s just a bunch of cameras after all.

      Also, the similarity between human learning and AI training is highly debatable.

      • Both of your examples are governed by the same set of privacy laws, which talk about consent, purpose and necessity, but not about scale. Legislating around scale open up the inevitable legal quagmires of “what scale is acceptable” and “should activity x be counted the same as activity y to meet the scale-level defined in the law”.

        Scale makes a difference, but it shouldn’t make a legal difference w.r.t. the legality of the activity.

        • lollow88
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Scale makes a difference, but it shouldn’t make a legal difference w.r.t. the legality of the activity.

          What do you think the difference between normal internet traffic and a ddos attack is?

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

            Intent is part of it as well. If you have too many people who want to use your service, you’re not being attacked, you have an actual shortage of ability to service requests and need to adjust accordingly.

            • lollow88
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In this context I meant that it was the same person doing a “normal” thing at such a scale that it becomes illegal. Scale absolutely is something that can turn something from legal to illegal.

                • lollow88
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I see what you mean. Perhaps cold calling would be a better example then, where it is illegal if it is automated.

    • topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When Google trained their playing neural network, they trained it to starcraft2 . It was better at it than professional gamer. It trained by watching 100years of play. Or 36500 days of play. Or 876000 hours of play.

      Does a human can do that ? We both know it’s impossible. As the other person said, the issue is scale.