goetzit

So now the output of both programs is “illegimate” in your eyes, despite one of them never even getting direct access to the original text.

Now lets say one of them just writes a story in the style of Twain, still plagiarism? Because I don’t know if you can copyright a style.

The first painter painted on cave walls with his fingers. Was the brush a parrot tool? A utility to plagiarize? You could use it for plagiarism, yes, and by your logic, it shouldn’t be used. And any work created using it is not “legitimate”.

Sure, AI is not doing anything creative, but neither is my pen, its the tool im using to be creative. Lets think about this more with some scenarios:

Lets say software developer “A” comes along, and they’re pretty fucking smart. They sit down, read through all of Mark Twains novels, and over the course of the next 5 years, create a piece of software that generates works in Twain’s style. Its so good that people begin using it to write real books. It doesn’t copy anything specifically from Twain, it just mimics his writing style.

We also have developer “B”. While Dev A is working on his project, Dev B is working on a very similar project, but with one difference: Dev B writes an LLM to read the books for him, and develop a writing style similar to Twain’s based off of that. The final product is more or less the same as Dev A’s product, but he saves himself the time of needing to read through every work on his own, he just reads a couple to get an idea of what the output might look like.

Is the work from Dev A’s software legitimate? Why or why not?

Is the work from Dev B’s software legitimate? Why or why not?

Assume both of these developers own copies of the works they used as training data, what is honestly the difference here? This is what I am struggling with so much.

Sure, but what I’m asking is: what do you think is a reasonable rate?

We are talking data sets that have millions of written works in them. If it costs hundreds or thousands per work, this venture almost doesn’t make sense anymore. If its $1 per work, or cents per work, then is it even worth it for each individual contributor to get $1 when it adds millions in operating costs?

In my opinion, this needs to be handled a lot more carefully than what is being proposed. We are potentially going to make AI datasets wayyyy too expensive for anyone to use aside from the largest companies in the market, and even then this will cause huge delays to that progress.

If AI is just blatantly copy and pasting what it read, then yes, I see that as a huge issue. But reading and learning from what it reads, no matter how rudimentary that “learning” may be, is much different than just copying works.

Okay, given that AI models need to look over hundreds of thousands if not millions of documents to get to a decent level of usefulness, how much should the author of each individual work get paid out?

Even if we say we are going to pay out a measly dollar for every work it looks over, you’re immediately talking millions of dollars in operating costs. Doesn’t this just box out anyone who can’t afford to spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars on AI development? Maybe good if you’ve always wanted big companies like Google and Microsoft to be the only ones able to develop these world-altering tools.

Another issue, who decides which works are more valuable, or how? Is a Shel Silverstein book worth less than a Mark Twain novel because it contains less words? If I self publish a book, is it worth as much as Mark Twains? Sure his is more popular but maybe mine is longer and contains more content, whats my payout in this scenario?

Oh okay, thank you, I didn’t realize that was the prefix for communities I guess i just assumed it was c/

There is a c/[email protected] but its not very active… be the change you wish to see!

Thanks. Yikes, that seems like it should be top priority. Memmy users not being able to post is probably hurting the site more than we realize, especially while we are in need of content.

Specifically, this is the error I am getting:

Okay, I have to ask, what adverse effects can be caused by meditation? It seems so harmless?

I can’t just go home and create an AI that can create art either, clearly i was simplifying things for my example.

Okay, I can understand that. But why is that being turned into “the creator of any work an AI looks at needs to be compensated” instead of holding AI companies accountable for plagiarized works?

I totally understand fining an AI company that produces a copy of Starry Night. But if it makes a painting similar in style to Starry Night that wouldn’t normally be considered a plagiarized work if a human did it, do we still consider that an issue?

I never understand this argument. If I go to an art museum, look at all the works, and create an art piece inspired by what i saw, no problem. If I go to an art museum, look at the works, and create a computer program that can create an art piece based on what I saw, that is somehow different? Because of the single step of abstraction that was taken by making some software to do it?