• Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But there is no one learning from it. It serves as a building block / source material to build these LLMs. I feel like the fact that it’s called learning gives folks the impression that it’s similar to what a human would do.

    • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “AI” isn’t intelligent, but that has literally zero relevance.

      Seeing copyrighted material and forming takeaways does not in any way resemble copyright infringement. It’s not the fact that a human is doing so that matters. It’s the fact that no sort of analysis constitutes copying or copyright infringement.

      • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But they aren’t forming take aways from it. They literally used that material to build this system. I also cannot just go around and take arbitrary data from anywhere and use it to build my own program. There are licenses attached to it and I have to be mindful of who’s work I can use to build my system and who’s I can’t use without explicit permission.

        Building this system isn’t looking at other folks material and forming take aways from it. It’s literally using that material as input for building the system.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes they are.

          And yes, you absolutely can use entirely New York Times articles as research material to write your own article based on conclusions from them. You can’t outright copy paste their articles, but you can freely use information learned from their articles however the hell you want.

          It’s the exact same thing. “AI” looks at their articles, integrates information, and does not retain the actual article. That has no similarity in any way to copyright infringement.

          • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well. When I copy and paste source code into my program and compile it it also doesn’t retain the actual code. It’s still not allowed.

            If I on the other hand read source code, remember and reapply it in a sort of similar way later on then that’s totally fine. But that’s not what OpenAI did there. There wasn’t a human involved that read the articles and then used that knowledge to adjust the LLM.

            There question i would have is where is the line there? Does that mean that as soon as there is some automated process that uses the data it’s fine?

            E.g. could I have a script that reads all NYT articles, extracts interesting information and provides them in a different format to users?

            • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, you can rewrite something in your own words and as it isn’t copied verbatim, then it isn’t infringement. You can’t copyright the idea of something.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is similar to what humans do. The principal difference is that the AI tech we have (as of yet) can’t learn how to learn: Those systems come with pre-determined rules to learn, we come with pre-determined rules on how to learn how to learn.

      And yes AIs abstract the knowledge they get fed. What they have trouble with is not forgetting how to play soccer when learning how to cook spaghetti as without the capacity to learn to learn they can’t vary encoding of information between topics and everything gets mushed together, new information blindly overwriting unrelated old information.