Technology

58028 readers

3375 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

787

OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology

371 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TropicalDingdong 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel the exact opposite. There’s no reason for me to create anything if someone else can come along and steal it. Eliminating copyright will bring your dystopian landscape where nobody shares any sort of art or creative work because someone else will steal it.

This is great because I think you are totally correct in your sentiment that we believe oppositely. I see art created only for the purpose of profit as drivel; true art is an expression of the self. If the only reason you make art is for profit, you aren't an artist, you are an employee.

[–] BURN 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s a great theory and all, but it’s not even money. I make no money from my photos, but I also refrain from posting any of them because I’d rather they not be used for AI training. Same with any music I create and I’m getting there with my code.

The nobility of art has always been in question, and it’s consistently been proven that artists who aren’t compensated for their work also tend to create less.

This is also not explicitly about profit. If I write a song and then it’s used at a hate rally, I currently have no recourse. They’re not making money from that application (directly), but they are using my creation to promote something I don’t agree with.

I’m curious to know if you’re an artist yourself, as it’s very contrary to the opinions from other creatives I know.

[–] TropicalDingdong 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

know if you’re an artist yourself, as it’s very contrary to the opinions from other creatives

I am and I do creative work professionally as well. I don't take credit for my art. I don't put my name on it. I create it, and release it, and once it exists, I depart from it.

[–] BURN 2 points 1 year ago

Fair. That’s not the approach I take, but it’s an understandable one.

I like credit for my work. I frequently revisit it too, so it just seems like we have different interpretations of why we create art.