• mimavox@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    The more important question is: Why can a human absorb a ton of material in their learning without anyone crying about them “stealing”? Why shouldn’t the same go for AI? What’s the difference? I really don’t understand the common mindset here. Is it because a trained AI is used for profit?

    • chaosCruiser@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’ve been thinking about that as well. If an author has bought 500 books, and read them, it’s obviously going to influence the books they write in the future. There’s nothing illegal about that. Then again, they did pay for the books, so I guess that makes it fine.

      What if they got the books from a library? Well, they probably also paid taxes, so that makes it ok.

      What if they pirated those books? In that case, the pirating part is problematic, but I don’t think anyone will sue the author for copying the style of LOTR in their own works.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It is because a human artist is usually inspired and uses knowledge to create new art and AI is just a mediocre mimic. A human artist doesn’t accidentally put six fingers on people on a regular basis. If they put fewer fingers it is intentional.

      • mimavox@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s where I don’t agree. I don’t subscribe to the view that LLMs merely are “stochastic parrots”.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          What do you think they are if not that?

          They don’t have emotions, they don’t have individual motivations, and don’t have intent.